Bookworm Room

New Location

2008-08-23T14:33:00.001-07:00

I no longer blog at this site. I've moved to Bookworm Room. Please visit me there.

2007-05-16T08:08:00.000-07:00

I have moved to a new blog host

2006-03-18T10:19:00.000-08:00

If you can read this, you're lucky. Blogger has been horrible this week, a plague that seems to be affecting many. For me, it's the straw that broke the camel's back, since I've been having lots and lots of Blogger problems over the last few months. While I'm incredibly grateful to Blogger for providing me with more than a year's worth of relatively easy, free blog hosting, I'm ready to start over. So -- my blog will henceforth be at WordPress. You can find it by clicking here. I'm struggling to figure out how to transfer all my data -- my stat counter, my Ecosystem information, my everything. So, if you've done this before, and you have advice, please send me an email at Bookwormroom@gmail.com. Also, please, please, please, if you'd be so kind: 1. Update your blogroll (assuming I'm already on it). 2. Let people know about my new address (I'd really appreciate that). Remember, henceforth, I'll be at http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com.

Who writes the history books?

2006-03-17T23:18:00.000-08:00

DQ here, and my shows are at it again. This time it's Criminal Minds, who put forth an American Indian as a strawman. Of course the Indian turns out to be a hero, while the bad guy is a capitalist posing as a cult leader and his cult followers who are duped by him. Along the way we are treated to a history class told from the perspective of the Indians. You can imagine what that sounded like. For example, the reservations were described as "internment camps." But it brings to mind a question. The old saying is that the winners write the history books. This has the salutary effect of strengthening the culture and passing it on to subsequent generations in a positive light. So what happens when the losers (and, whatever else may be said about American Indians, they were the losers) write the history books? This is more than an idle question, since the Left, who has taken over American education, presents history more from the standpoint of the losers than the winners. Our kids are learning to hate the society they are raised in. What long term effects will this have on our society? I find it hard to imagine the effects will be positive.

Blech

2006-03-17T15:23:00.000-08:00

Do you remember how, in 1960s sitcoms, there was a standard refrain of the amusing drunk? Bewitched had its stock drunk, who was always around to be witness to the various witches' comings and goings -- and, of course, no one believed him. The Dick Van Dyke show also liked to toy with drunks. Indeed, one of the funniest episodes ever had a hypnotist make it so that, every time the phone rang, Rob would act like a complete drunk, only to stop the next time the phone range, ad infinitum. Van Dyke's physical humor was perfect for this type of comedy. The only sad part watching this episode, with 20/20 hindsight, is to know that Van Dyke was sliding down into real dysfunctional alcoholism even as audiences of the time watched and laughed. The reason I'm thinking about this is because I went to a lunch party today and one of the guests got dysfunctionally drunk. It was not funny. It was embarrassing and disgusting. I'm not a great yardstick of these things, since I don't drink (I don't like the stuff, and I don't like anything that impairs my self-control, even minimally), but her conduct went beyond the pale to the point where everyone in the place was engrossed in the spectacle. What I wished, in a bizarre way, was that my kids could have had a glimpse of this. We've taught them, by pointing to friends who drink responsibly, that drinking alcohol can be a socially appropriate thing, but it's very hard to get them to understand why we place limits on that conduct. Seeing a sloppy, disgusting drunk is a great lesson about the downside of alcohol -- or, indeed, about the downside of abusing anything. UPDATE: When I wrote the above, I didn't realize that there is still a small group out there celebrating the "romance" of drunkeness. But so it is. I tuned into NationalReview Online and read the following:

At the beginning of his interview, Frank Kelly Rich apologizes for having missed an earlier interview we had scheduled. He was out conducting research for an article, he explains, and couldn’t be reached. By that he means he was out having a drink. Well, more than a drink. Actually, it was a “mini-bender.” It happens fairly often too.

“Sometimes they’ll be actual seven-day style ones, especially when I’m researching a story,” he said in a phone interview from his native Denver, Colorado.

Those kinds of work habits would get most people in trouble with the boss, but not Rich. Not only because he’s his own boss, but because his work literally demands serious drinking. Rich is the founder, editor, and guiding light behind Modern Drunkard Magazine.

Now in its tenth year, with a circulation around 35,000, the bi-monthly humor magazine celebrates all things related to drinking alcohol. For those who can’t find it on the newsstand, a compilation of its most popular articles was published last year.

Inspired by the likes of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack, poet Charles Bukowski, W. C. Fields, and countless others, Modern Drunkard recalls those earlier eras when getting hammered nightly was the height of coolness, not a cry for help. Its mission today is to preserve that culture against a rising tide of “neo-prohibitionism” that Rich says is slowly overtaking America.

He may be right about the "neo-prohibitionism" but, frankly, afterspending some time with a serious drunk, I'll take neo-prohibitionism any time. Talking to Technorati: Drunks

I feel the eternal Caesar within me

2006-03-16T11:15:00.000-08:00

This type of story is why I still like NPR -- you just won't hear this anywhere else and it's wonderful.

Be the first to know about the things that matter

2006-03-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

Centcom has just published General Abizaid's statement about the 2006 posture of the United States Central Command. It's fascinating reading, insofar as it is both a log of accomplishments in three regions (Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa), and a road map of plans and expectations for the coming year. To begin with, did you know how vast is CENTCOM's area of operations and responsibility?

The CENTCOM region spans 6.5 million square miles and 27 countries including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, the countries of the Horn of Africa, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan, and the Central Asian states as far north as Kazakhstan. It incorporates a nexus of vital transportation and trade routes, including the Red Sea, the Northern Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Gulf. It is home to the strategic maritime choke points of the Suez Canal, the Bab el Mandeb, and the Strait of Hormuz. It encompasses the world’s most energy-rich region – the Arabian Gulf alone accounts for 57% of the world’s crude oil reserves, 28% of the world’s oil production, and 41% of the world’s natural gas reserves. The more than 650 million people who live in the region make up at least 18 major ethnic groups of many nationalities and cultures. While predominantly Muslim, the region is home to adherents of all of the world's major religions. Human civilization had its birth in this region, with many cities dating back thousands of years. The diverse peoples of the region take understandable pride in their rich culture and history.

The statement doesn't hedge about the nature of the fight ahead of us. It's a tough one and a long one. (I can just hear the Democratic Senators in upcoming years saying that nobody every told them it was going to be a long war.)

Defeating al Qaida and associated ideological movements will require significant counterterrorism cooperation among our allies and partners not only within the CENTCOM AOR, but throughout the globe. It will also require the dedication of military, intelligence, and many other components of national power. Our network of allies and agencies will eventually defeat the al Qaida network, but we have yet to master the integration of national and international power to achieve success against this ruthless, borderless enemy. We have long experience with nation state warfare. We must, in the years ahead, learn to organize ourselves to defeat a stateless enemy capable of delivering state-like destruction without having state-like vulnerabilities. Defeating such an enemy requires a careful study of its clearly articulated strategy and vision.

I have to fault the report for having the usually PC pabulum about Islam being a religion of peace, but I suspect that, having described the conduct engaged in by its adherents, the General felt obligated to make a disclaimer:

This enemy seeks to topple local governments, establish a repressive and intolerant regional theocracy, and then extend its violence to the rest of the world. To effect such change, this enemy believes it must evict the United States and our Coalition allies from the region. Masking their true intentions with propaganda, rhetoric, and a sophisticated use of the mass media and the internet, this enemy exploits regional tensions and popular grievances. Al Qaida and its associated movements exhibit strategic patience and are willing to wait decades to achieve their goals. These extremists defame the religion of Islam by glorifying suicide bombing, by taking and beheading hostages, and by the wanton use of explosive devices that kill innocent people by the score. Their false jihad kills indiscriminately and runs contrary to any standard of moral conduct and behavior. The enemy’s vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known. But more important, the more that regional leaders talk about and act against this enemy, the less attractive it will be. Osama bin Laden and Musab al Zarqawi cannot represent the future of Islam. Al Qaida and their allies are ruthless, giving them power beyond their relatively small numbers. They are masters of intimidation. Their depraved attacks menace entire communities and can influence the policies of national governments. They embrace asymmetric warfare, focusing their means on the innocent and defenseless. In Jordan, they target wedding parties. In Iraq, they murder children playing in the streets, doctors working in hospitals, and UN employees supporting Iraqi efforts to build their country. They respect no neutral ground.

Anyway, I won't quote the whole report, but I definitely think it's worth reading, so that you'll know at least as much as your Congressman.

Succinctly explaining judicial activism

2006-03-16T10:06:00.000-08:00

Apparently Justice Ginsburg was recently in South Africa heaping disrespect on the American Constitution. (What is it lately with American public figures going abroad to denigrate America? Think Al Gore here.) Anyway, as noted in this Power Line post about Justice Ginsburg she summarized her whole judicial philosophy this way:

To a large extent, I believe, the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions. We refer to decisions rendered abroad, it bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication, in Judge Wald's words, of "common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed."

John, at PowerLine, comes back with the perfect response:

This is, to put it politely, nonsense. In our system of government, the courts are not called on to determine what "basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed" requires. For legal purposes, issues of "basic fairness" were decided when the Constitution was authored and approved by the initial thirteen states, and when the document has been amended over the subsequent centuries. The real issue here is: what is the Constitution? Justice Scalia has famously noted that the Constitution is a legal document which, like all legal documents, says some things and does not say others. In Justice Ginsburg's view the Constitution is, on the contrary, a roving charter for nine individuals to decide what "basic fairness" requires. It should hardly be necessary to point out that the former understanding, which was universal until quite recently, is a charter of freedom, inasmuch as the people's representatives can vote on amendments. Conversely, the "basic fairness" approach is a form of tyranny in which a small elite can impose its policy preferences on the rest of us. It is also utterly unworkable. There is a reason why people reduce legal documents to writing: it's the only way to know what the deal is. Under Justice Ginsburg's approach, the "law" is ineffable. There is no way to know from one day to the next what it might be.

We can only wait for the day when Justice Ginsburg decides that she'd rather lie in the sun in her backyard and catch a few "Z's", than slog off to the Court every day. And we can only hope that we reaches this conclusion in the next two years. UPDATE: If you want to know how judges who are not judicial activitists view their responsibilities on the bench, and if you want to understand why their viewpoint is more consistent with the role the Constitution plays in America, read this article. Talking to Technorati: Ginsburg, Judicial activism

No Ivy on my walls

2006-03-16T10:02:00.000-08:00

My kids are still far away from college decisions, but I just loved Anne Morse's take on what's wrong with the Ivy Leagues, written as part of a longer article about why her son won't be going to Yale anytime soon:

There has always been a certain glamour attached to an Ivy League education, and many parents dream of seeing their children walk through those Ivy gates. But in recent years the tawdry behavior of Ivy League professors and administrators—at Yale and elsewhere — has tarnished that glamour. Harvard ousted a popular president for even entertaining the possibility of innate differences between men and women. At Princeton, one well-known professor advocates bestiality, while another allowed an artist to exhibit works blasphemous to Catholic students (while acknowledging that she would never permit Muslim students to be similarly insulted). Columbia naps while its professors engage in vicious anti-Semitism. During freshman orientation at Dartmouth last fall, students were ordered to stand and pledge allegiance to a gay pride flag. And on it goes. Parents expected to pony up their life’s savings, or take out crushing loans to fund such foolishness, cannot help wondering: Why are we even thinking of paying for this?

All I can say, you go, girl! Talking to Technorati: Yale, Ivy Leagues, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth

This is why we shouldn't pay attention to the Hollywood types

2006-03-16T07:52:00.000-08:00

It's a tempest in a teapot: George Clooney and Arianna Huffington are disputing whether the latter had the right to gather together a series of statements that Clooney in fact made, and then print them as "Clooney's blog." I won't bore you with the oh-so-petty-and-boring details. What had me laughing, though, was the statement from Clooney's publicist:

"It's not a misunderstanding, it's misrepresentation," he said. "She knows what she was doing. She was saying to people that she had George Clooney's blog and was printing it. George Clooney does not make statements. He answers questions." [Emphasis mine.]

I love that: "George Clooney does not make statements. He answers questions." First off, what the heck is that supposed to mean? Those of us who attend to the news regularly, or even casually, know that Clooney is constantly making statements about how noble he is, how evil the U.S. is, and how stupid President Bush is. The man never shuts up. And yet here we have the statement that, Godlike, Clooney cannot be expected to speak like an ordinary man. He can only be approached as an oracle. So you have to ask yourself again: Why in the world would anyone take this bubble headed, and bubble encased, Hollywood types seriously? Talking to Technorati: Clooney, Huffington

Deny facts and teasing at faith

2006-03-16T07:44:00.000-08:00

Marc, at American Future, points to an article called "Separating Truth and Belief," which André Glucksmann, a French philosopher wrote for Democratiya. Amazingly, for something written by a French philosopher, it's neither turgid nor pointless -- it's short, interesting and, as Marc says, important. I'm therefore honoring Marc's request that this get greater blog play and am printing it here in its entirety:

The anti-caricature campaign started by attacking a newspaper. It then focussed on Denmark as a defender of the freedom of the press, and now it has all of Europe in its sights, which it accuses of having a double standard. The European Union allows the Prophet to be denigrated with impunity, but it forbids and condemns other 'opinions' like Nazism and denial of the Holocaust. Why are jokes about Muhammad permitted, but not those about the genocide of the Jews? This was the rallying call of fundamentalists before they initiated a competition for Auschwitz cartoons. Fair's fair: either everything should be allowed in the name of the freedom of expression, or we should censor that which shocks both parties. Many people who defend the right to caricature feel trapped. Will they publish drawings about the gas chambers in the name of freedom of expression? Offence for offence? Infringement for infringement? Can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent 'beliefs' which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief. This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought. Aristotle distinguished between indicative discourse on the one hand, which could be used to reach an affirmation or a negation, and prayer on the other. Prayers are not a matter for discussion, because they do not state: they implore, promise, vow and declare. They do not relate information, they perform an act. When the Islamist fanatic affirms that Europeans practise the 'religion of the Shoah' while he practises that of Muhammad, he abolishes the distinction between fact and belief. For him there are only beliefs, and so it follows that Europe will favour its own. Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations – so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ('I am the truth') or they fall into nihilism ('nothing is true, nothing is false'). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions. A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject 'actually existing socialism'. Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists – who are far from representing all Muslims – like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising any one of the beliefs which every European has the right to practice or poke fun at. For centuries, Jupiter and Christ, Jehovah and Allah have had to put up with many a joke. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith. That is the price of religious peace. But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future. It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think. What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: here on earth the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity.

Talking to Technorati: Faith, Fact, Cartoon riots, Holocaust cartoons, Mohammad cartoons

Read it, please!

2006-03-15T14:21:00.000-08:00

This Haim Harari speech, which appears as a FrontPage article, is far and away one of the best things I've seen about the troubles plaguing the Arab world; about the War they've embarked upon, with or without our awareness; about the weapons they use; and about the responses we have. It ranks, in my mind, as a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what's going on in the world today vis a vis Arabs/Muslims and the West (or, at the very least, for anyone who wants to know where I'm coming from when I blog).

Torture cultures

2006-03-15T13:14:00.000-08:00

Laer asked "Why was Tom Fox tortured?" As you may recall, Tom Fox was the Christian peace activist who was kidnapped in Iraq along with a group of others from his organization. His body turned up a couple of days ago. He'd been shot multiple times in the head and indications were he'd been tortured before he died. And so Laer posed the question, "Why the torture?" My response was that I believe Muslim fundamentalists come from a culture that believes in torture -- which is an entirely separate idea from saying that the Muslims who actually carried out the torture happen to believe in torture. English Professor, in her comment to Laer's post, politely asked why I reached this conclusion. I thought about her question and here is my answer, expanded from the answer I left at Laer's blog. The first part of my answer is that there is an extraordinary amount of torture and violent death coming from the fundamentalist (and not-so-fundamentalist) side of the Muslim spectrum. Here's a random laundry list: 1. Ilan Halimi 2. Daniel Pearl 3. Nick Berg 4. Christian school girls decapitated in Indonesia 5. Saddam Hussein's prisons and his sons' use of those prisons. (Indeed, people are now buying videos of these horrible tortures to try to find the fate of their missing family members.) 6. The atrocities in the Sudan that the white Muslims use to purge Christians and black Muslims. 7. The way in which Theo Van Gogh was killed. Incidentally, Van Gogh's murder included body mutilation, which I consider a subset of torture, since it has within it the same impulse to humiliate and destroy, even after death. So you can add to this list the body mutilation on the American contractors in Fallujah. 8. The incredibly brutal rapes young women in Australia and northern countries have been suffering at the hands of young Muslim men. That's all I can think of off hand, but you get the idea. Of course, I know that some of you are saying, "don't be so holier than thou -- we have rapes, we have Gitmo, Israeli soldiers torture prisoners, Western women get raped on the streets and in their homes, etc." All of which is true, but ignores my second point. The second part of my answer is that torture cultures, rather than decrying these atrocities, celebrate them. Think of the furor and self-flagellation in America after we learned about what happened at Abu Ghraib. Westerns writhed in embarrassment and shame, and apologized a thousand times over. Whether people supported the war or not, whether they supported the military or not, whether they supported the President or not, they were united in their condemnation of what happened their, united in seeing that the malfeasors were punished, and united in ensuring that this didn't happen again. We see this same disgust when Westerners confront rape. Unless you're in the infinitesimally small group of Western men who commit violent rape, you view rape as a taboo, horrible thing. In the torture cultures, however, all of these atrocities, rather than being condemned, are celebrated. Some examples: 1. The Muslim-on-Western rapes I spoke of are viewed as appropriate activities in the Muslim community, since the bareheaded young women "deserve" this treatment. 2. You may recall dancing Palestinians, rejoicing in human suffering as the Twin Towers fell. 3. While we buy slick Hollywood videos (some good, some bad), popular videos on the Arab street show in glorious, gruesome, bloody detail the tortures and beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and others. 4. At MEMRI, you can read speech after speech of Arab speakers, speaking to Arab audiences, calling for the slow, painful death of their enemies (that would be us). 5. And recall that the contractors' death and mutiliation in Fallujah was a mob activity. I don't want to be too high and mighty here. Our Western culture has also had times of being a torture culture, with torture functioning, not just as a government tool, but as popular entertainment. I won't bore you with the Romans and their coliseums and crucifixes; the Spanish with their racks; the Western Europeans with their burnings, flayings, rackings, dismemberings, etc; the Nazis with their "all of the above" approach to torture. All those happened. Sadly, the urge to torture seems to be an innate part of the human psyche. However, our Western culture has decided that, whether the desire to torture the "other" is innate or not, it's a bad thing. We discourage it from happening and, when it happens, we decry it and punish it. The fundamentalist Muslim culture, however, celebrates torture as an act that is appropriately visited upon "others." And I'm going to be non-PC here and make a value judgment: I think we're right and they're wrong. I want to be on my side in this culture war and not theirs. And I think Tom Fox was tortured because he had the bad luck to fall afoul of a torture culture. Talking to Technorati: Torture

Spinning a story

2006-03-15T11:02:00.000-08:00

Yes, the MSM usually puts all the facts in an article. But as every lawyer knows, it's not just that the facts appear, it's how you spin them. If you'd like to see a perfect deconstruction of a very spun article about an event in Iraq, please check out this Cheat Seeking Missiles post.

I need to have my head examined

2006-03-15T09:50:00.000-08:00

I really need to work on resisting my self-destructive impulses. I'm just hoping I don't regret giving in to this last one. What did I do? I got a dog. She's an 8 month old puppy, a mutt, from the pound. So far, in the less than 24 hours I've had her, she's proven herself to be smart (she's already learned to heel and sit, despite obvious unfamiliarity with the concepts) and friendly. She's also riddled with tapeworm, because the shelter forgot to treat her! The good thing about this infestation is that, from the kids' point of view, there's a legitimate reason Mom's keeping the dog locked securely in a crate and refusing to allow them to touch her. I've got a good two or three days of working with the dog and teaching her I'm in charge before my own two puppies begin seriously engaging with her. My hope and belief is that, in a month, I'll have a well-trained, well-housebroken, happy companion. Keep your fingers crossed for me!

How to get rejected

2006-03-14T11:33:00.000-08:00

No time for blogging today (it's a 12 hour day packed into 6), so I'll leave you with a question that's been plaguing me since my 20s. You're a guy who is interested in a gal. You ask her out. Would you rather that she (a) fobs you off with a line about being busy, without providing an alternative date; or (b) says something along the lines of "I'm incredibly flattered that you'd ask me out but I'd rather not." Both are rejections, but they take very different forms. One is implied, one direct. Which is preferable?

There won't always be an England

2006-03-13T21:34:00.000-08:00

As a student of English history, I long ago learned that the last time England was conquered was in 1066. My information, though, is shockingly out of date. It turns out that England is slowly being conquered from within and that, contrary, to the popular saying, there won't always be an England. Do you doubt my statement and think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. You've probably already heard that the British paper, The Telegraph, depublished Alasdair Palmer's article entitled "ENGLAND: The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state." Fortunately, the article is still available in the invaluable internet, and American Future does us the favor of printing it in its entirety here. To give you an idea of what the article says about Islamic goals for England, here's just a small portion of the much longer, very detailed article:

Perhaps the explanation is just that they [British leaders] do not take it [Muslim threats against Christians, Jews and England itself] seriously. 'I fear that is exactly the problem,' says Dr Sookhdeo. 'The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook. They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism. 'For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey. 'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion – and it is their aim to achieve this. 'That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future – and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate. 'Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.' That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. 'That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities – which will be backed up by the claim that it is 'racist' or 'Islamophobic' or 'violating the rights of Muslims' to deny them sharia law. 'There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions. 'Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time – and stay married, in sharia law, to all four. 'The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.'

As I said, it's a long article, but it's well worth reading, both because of what it says, and because of what is revealed by the fact that the Telegraph withdrew its publication. (The Telegraph also fired the brilliant Mark Steyn -- but that's a another story altogether).

It's me!

2006-03-13T21:02:00.000-08:00

If you want to get to know me (sort of), here I am. If you're wondering about yourself, see what you discover here. Hat tip: Crossing the Rubicon

Rich is back!

2006-03-13T20:12:00.000-08:00

After a year away from blogging, Rich, at Beef always wins is back. Rich was the first longtail blogger I discovered, and I've missed his wise, witty observations a great deal during his blogging sabbatical. Welcome back, Rich! And as for the rest of you, if you're not familiar with his blog, be sure to check it out.

Everything you knew about the crusades was probably wrong

2006-03-13T17:58:00.000-08:00

The Crusades were a centuries' long series of bloody persecutions that the Christians waged against innocent Muslims in order to (a) steal Muslim wealth and (b) force Muslims to convert at swordpoint, right? Wrong. It turns out that the Crusades were anything but a unilateral war to destroy Islam. The truth, as explained by Robert Spencer, a well-recognized scholar of Islam and the Crusades, is that the Crusades were started as a defensive war against repeated Muslim encroachments; were fought consistent with the rules of warfare as understood by both Christians and Muslims at the time; and, until the decline of the Muslim nations, were not seen as a historical big deal, since the Crusaders basically lost. You should definitely read the whole interview with Spencer, which is fascinating, and which is a useful effort to set straight a historical record upon which Islamic fanatics increasingly rely to work on Western politically correct guilt. Hat tip: The Paragraph Farmer Talking to Technorati: Crusades

Enshrining malignancies

2006-03-13T12:51:00.000-08:00

Frankly, it's not as if I need more proof that our colleges and universities are jumping their own personal sharks, so as to make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of ordinary Americans. However, if I did need proof, I would find it in this John Leo article about the various awards and honors our colleges and universities shower upon those whose values are somewhat antithetical to ordinary American values. Some examples:

Stanford University gives the Allan Cox medal each year for faculty excellence in guiding student research. Cox was a professor of geophysics and dean of the school of earth sciences at Stanford. He committed suicide in 1987 while under investigation for sexually molesting the son of a former student. The molesting allegedly went on for five years, starting when the boy was 14. One of the most elegant prep schools, Phillips Exeter Academy, gives an annual Edmund E. Perry Award for "diversity and cultural awareness." Perry was an outstanding black student at Phillips Exeter who was shot to death in Harlem while trying to mug a plainclothes cop. *** Last year the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New York announced a new scholarship named for Ho Chi Minh and another honoring Joanne Chesimard, the former Black Panther and convicted murderer of a New Jersey police officer. Both scholarships were quickly renamed after protests.

You can read the rest here. No wonder I'm less enthuasiastic than Mr. Bookworm about spending my very hard earned money to send my children to fancy East Coast (or any Coast) liberal arts colleges. Fortunately, since my children are young, our debate right now is hypothetical. I'm hoping that, when they're old enough for the debate to be real, the evidence of insanity at these institutions will have reached proportions sufficient either (a) to dissuade Mr. Bookworm from casting yearning eyes at these places or (b) to effect an actual change at these places so that I won't mind funding them.

I take Mary, and Susan, and Charlotte to be my lawful wedded wives

2006-03-13T10:24:00.000-08:00

Do you have any thoughts about the legalization of "poly" relationships? By poly, I mean polygamy, polygyny or polyandry. If you do, share them at Out of the Binjo Ditch, where Steve is soliciting responses to his question as to whether those relationships should be legalized or not. I think it's an extremely interesting question, and one that should be considered, since countries formerly committed to monogamy, such as Canada, Sweden and Holland, are flirting with the idea.

Playing God

2006-03-13T09:18:00.000-08:00

I've long found the push for euthanasia concerning, because it's such a slippery slope. It starts off with high minded discussions about horrible suffering and imminent death, and ends up boiling down to freeing up money and taking burdens of (legitimately) over-burdened caregivers. I guess my views were formed by this joke, which I heard as a child, and included on my blog about a year ago:

In a small Asian village a long time ago, a young boy met up with his father. The father was heading to the river and, on his back, he carried a basket into which he'd packed the boy's aged grandfather. "Father," asked the boy. "Where are you taking grandfather in that basket?" "Shh," said the father. "Grandfather is old and sick. Caring for and feeding him is becoming too difficult and expensive, so I am taking him down to the river to drown him." "That's an excellent idea," replied the boy. "Just remember to bring the basket back, so that I can use it for you when the time comes."

I was reminded of this point when I read Colleen Carroll Campbell's article about the increased reliance on euthanasia in Holland, as well as the unseemly haste to see Haleigh Poutre in her grave. There is no doubt that, in the modern age, we face dilemmas of the type never seen before. In the old days, doctors could do little but give palliative care and, often, their best intentions were more deadly than the diseases they treated. The problem, now, is that we're able to keep alive people who, without medical intervention, would die. This means that we really have two types of euthanasia to consider. The first, and the one that's popular in Holland, is for the doctor actively to kill someone who would survive but for the doctor's action. In other word, doctors are being given license to kill people they no longer deem worthy of living. Mengele did that, and it's a slippering slope no matter how you try to dress it up in pretty language about alleviating suffering. (Speaking of Mengele, I told the story here about a family friend who faced Mengele down and talked herself out of the gas chamber.) The second, and infinitely more troubling type of euthanasia is the one where the doctor withholds treatment from people who will die but for the treatment. In this scenario, is the doctor playing God by giving the treatment in the first place (which prevents the natural death process) or is he playing God by withholding that same treatment? On the one hand, the moment one gives the doctor the power to decide who is worth, you start moving into scary ethical territory. On the other hand, I'm in favor of the "Do Not Resuscitate" requests that people with terminal illnesses make. The process of resuscitation is incredibly brutal and, in people this ill, apparently often futile. That's why I can't come down as entirely opposed to withholding treatment, when imposing treatment would be more dreadful than the alternative.

Achooo!!!

2006-03-12T18:10:00.000-08:00

I've got a cold which, I'm happy to say, is a rare event in my life, since it leaves me feeling like a wrung out dish rag. I burned up what little energy I had setting the house in order, and learned something about Mr. Bookworm in the process. Mr. Bookworm is less tidy than I am, something I occasionally find irritating. Today, I spent several hours putting away -- and throwing away -- stuff that had migrated to shelves and floors. Stuff like empty shoe boxes (that Payless Shoes is an enticing place when you have kids), old shopping bags, broken party favors, dirty clothes, empty backpacks and lunch bags, random items left over from ski trips, books, balls, GI Joes, beaded bracelets, etc. When I collapsed, exhausted, I congratulated myself on a necessary job fairly well done. My husband's comment: "Why'd you do that? It looked good before. It looks so sterile now." That explains so much.

Global warming alert

2006-03-11T17:46:00.000-08:00

This deadly nightmare is what happens when you get snow in the wrong place:

Northbound Highway 101 near Sausalito is open again, now that authorities have cleared the wreckage left by a 28-car pileup on the icy and snowy highway that killed two people and injured more than a dozen others. The roadway opened at 1:35 p.m., more than 11 hours after the accident brought traffic to a halt. Investigators had kept the road closed to gather evidence and clear the wreckage, which stretched hundreds of feet along the roadway just north of the Waldo Tunnel, said CHP Sgt. Wayne Ziese. Authorities said the colossal pile-up started at 2:28 a.m. when cars began sliding on the roadway, which was slick with snow and slush. *** The wreckage stretched for 350 to 400 feet, creating what Ziese called "a jigsaw puzzle of cars." Dented cars faced every which way, strewn about like bowling pins. Broken glass, license plates, bashed fenders and CD cases littered the road. De La Torre Torres' crushed Honda had slammed into the center divide with another silver sedan. Its passenger door was embedded in the back of a white SUV several yards uphill in the middle of the logjam. Big-rig drivers approaching the crash had slowed in time and turned their trucks to block the lanes, preventing additional cars from joining the pile-up, Ziese said. He said motorists were simply going too fast for the unusual snowy and icy conditions that left the road slick. "They're coming around a curve, losing control, slip-sliding, spinning. Pretty soon it's boom-boom-boom-boom-boom," he said. "I don't recall a pileup of this nature in 20-some years in the Bay Area." *** Curtis Glace was the first CHP officer to arrive, and he found a surreal scene of chaos and confusion blanketed by an inch of snow and slush. Car horns and alarms blared as people, many of them standing outside their cars, yelled for help. "I have never seen anything like that," he said. "Everyone was sliding and everything happened so fast . . . One person said they kept getting hit, so much they couldn't keep track."

Driving in winter conditions is an acquired skill, and not one likely to kick in if you don't even realize that, in a place that never gets snow, your ploughing through icy slush:

Marin county resident Dimitris Koutsoukos, 51, was returning home from dinner in San Francisco when he came through the tunnel, saw lights and tried to stop but found his car sliding 200 yards on the slippery road. "It felt funny," Koutsoukos said today, standing amid the wreckage, his Mercedes Benz caught up in the middle of it. "All of a sudden, I was hitting the car in front of me, and I was hit. I thought it was raining. I didn't think it was snow because I never experienced snow."

Here's a picture from the Marin IJ story about the accident. Note the bizarre white stuff on the ground:

Slow and small

2006-03-11T17:40:00.000-08:00

Apparently the mills of God decided to kick in after it became apparent that the UN machinery was never going to get Milsevic to justice:

Former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, the so-called 'butcher of the Balkans' being tried for war crimes after orchestrating a decade of bloodshed that killed 250,000 people and broke up his country, was found dead Saturday in his prison cell. He was 64. Milosevic, who suffered chronic heart ailments and high blood pressure, apparently died of natural causes and was found in his bed, the U.N. tribunal said, without giving an exact time of death.

I find intriguing what a small story this is. He was an evil man who reopened the reign of genocide on European soil. I think, too, that the UN's sluggish response to the atrocities he ordered has been a green light for all manner of other evil people. Hard to imagine the Nurenberg tribunal functioning with such malaise, political game playing, and inefficiency.

Psst. Did you hear the latest about Hillary?

2006-03-10T16:07:00.000-08:00

You probably haven't heard this story about Hillary if you're riveted to the NY Times or LA Times, so here is the beginning, and you can click on the link to get the rest:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has accepted campaign contributions from a Saipan garment-industry tycoon, sometimes described as a sweatshop operator, whose ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff have been part of the lobbying scandal investigation. Newly filed Federal Election Commission records show that the businessman, Willie Tan, last year gave $2,000 to Friends of Hillary, one of the senator's political action committees. Friends of Hillary also accepted $2,000 contributions from Raymond Tan and Siu Lin Tan, family members who are top executives in Willie Tan's businesses. All three contributions were received on September 30, 2005, according to FEC records. Another family member, Josie Tan, who listed her occupation as homemaker, made a $2,000 contribution received on October 2, 2005. Together, the Tans contributed more to Friends of Hillary than the senator's PAC received, separately, from residents of the states of Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, Vermont, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota, Montana, or North Dakota, according to the nonpartisan website PoliticalMoneyLine.com For years, Willie Tan, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, has played a central role in business and politics in the Northern Mariana Islands. His chief interest has been in protecting his garment factories, which pay sub-minimum wages, from U.S. labor laws. In 1992, Tan's businesses were cited as sweatshops by the Labor Department, and Tan was forced to give $9 million in back wages and damages to workers. As part of his effort to steer clear of further American regulation, Tan hired Jack Abramoff.

Frankly, I doubt it's any more scandalous than any of the other dirty money flowing into politics on both sides of the aisle. I report it here only because I have my doubts about it getting much play elsewhere.

An observation about monopolies

2006-03-10T12:41:00.000-08:00

Don Quixote and I were talking about our experiences with court reporters. Although there are always individuals who buck these general observations, the fact is that court reporters who do depositions tend to be reliable, polite and have quick turnaround. Contrariwise, court reporters who are actually employed by the courts tend to be unreliable, curt, and incredibly slow in producing work product. The difference? The deposition court reporters are out in the market hustling for customers. The trial court reporters have government jobs for life, and know that you have no recourse. By the way, lest I offend any court reporters reading this, I am always impressed by the amazing work product that they turn out. Also, even with government employee court reporters, I've never had someone directly rude to me. The main frustration is trying to track them down and get their work product (which one needs to pursue writs and appeals). I also don't know what kind of a workload trial court reporters carry. I just know outcomes, and the market definitely produces better outcomes. Talking to Technorati: Monopolies, Market forces, Court reporters

I'm still laughing

2006-03-09T21:45:00.000-08:00

This is my 8 year old daughter's self-evaluation about her leadership skills: "My leadership skill is helping people when they are fighting, because I fight with my friends and my brother all the time."

"Come on. Dish the dirt."

2006-03-09T13:14:00.000-08:00

NPR had the decency to call Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli about what's going on in Iraq, so that he would counter another story about Iraqis worried about more violence. Chriarelli is generally upbeat, telling NPR that that the supply lines are getting more secure, American forces are able to become less visible, the Iraqi Army is performing well and understands its role in a Democracy, and the Army is turning its attention to the police forces. What's so fascinating about the interview is the interviewer's (and I don't know which NPR personality it is) frantic effort to catch Chiarelli on some dirt. It reminded me of a cross-examination, where the lawyer essentially testifies through the questions he asks. Here's the deal: direct questions are open-ended. They'd be questions such as "How is the situation?" "What are you doing to address security concerns?" A cross-examination question is meant to contain within it the answer you seek, confining the witness to yes or no answers: "Isn't the situation disastrous?" "You're unable to address security concerns, aren't you?" "Sectarian violence has gotten out of your control, hasn't it?" (These aren't questions from the NPR story, but they match the tone.) This technique, of course, puts both the interrogator's and the witness's credibility on the line in a trial. It was always my understanding -- color me naive -- that good reporting at least started with open-ended, direct questions. That is, true reporting is a way of learning, and disseminating news, not trying to obtain someone's conviction. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find that kind of reporting notably absent here.

At the movies

2006-03-09T12:04:00.000-08:00

Okay, this post isn't actually about going to the movies, because that's something I never do, and it's not even about current movies, since one of them is 70 years old, but it is about three movies I've recently seen and want to comment on. Movie No. One: Have you ever seen San Francisco, the classic 1936 movie about the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco (and the movie that introduced the famous eponymous song)? If you haven't, you definitely should, and for a whole bunch of reasons. To begin with, April 18 is the 100th anniversary of the quake. (You can find some good websites here, here and here.) It was an extraordinary geological event. My next door neighbor when I grew up through the quake. Her house was relative undamaged, but she recalls that the fires, which were a couple of miles from her house, blazed so brightly you could read a newspaper by their light in the middle of the night. Anyway, San Francisco has, in my opinion, one of the best earthquake sequences ever filmed. Sure, the technique's a bit primitive, but it still packs a huge wallop -- something that may not be surprising if one considers that there may have been many involved in making the movie (filmed a mere 30 years after the quake) who actually experienced the quake or personally knew someone who had been there. The movie also has Clark Gable, as a Barbary Coast nightclub owner, Jeanette MacDonald, as the singing preacher's daughter whom Gable learns to love, and Spencer Tracy, as the fighting priest, which makes for a totally wonderful cast. Add to this a knock-out script by Anita Loos (of Gentleman Prefer Blondes fame, and herself a San Francisco native), which contains dialog like this:

Blackie Norton: Well sister, what's your racket? Mary Blake: I'm a singer! Blackie Norton: Let's see your legs! Mary Blake: I said, I'm a singer! Blackie Norton: All right, let's see your legs!

Aside from the tart dialogue, I swear that I still tear up every time the movie reaches the shlocky but inspiring end, which I won't ruin for you by describing. Movie No. Two: 50 First Dates is the most schizophrenic movie I've ever seen. About a third of it is gross comedy with vomit, transvestite jokes and a racist Hawaiian caricature played by the truly untalented Rob Schneider. But the other two thirds of the movie is a sweet, charming love story about a man, nicely played by Adam Sandler, who falls in love with a woman (Drew Barrymore), who has a brain injury that leaves her stuck in a time warp. It's this love story that, while improbable, is imaginative, and leaves you feeling good. I ended up giving the movie two stars on Netflix, because the gross part garnered it one, the sweet part earned it three, and the average was two. Movie No. Three: If you're having any doubts about whether executing Stanley "Tookie" Williams was a good thing, City of God, a Brazilian film from 2002, will set those doubts to rest, even though it actually has nothing to do with Tookie. City of God is set in a slum outside of Rio, and follows a nice boy's efforts to survive life in those slums from the 1960s through the present day. The slums are riddled with hoodlums, guns and drugs, and the violence, though never graphic, is appalling and deeply disturbing. It's especially awful because, in the most violent character, named Li'l Dice or Li'l Ze, you see Tookie -- the uncontrolled lust to kill, the joy in suffering, the thirst for power, the organizational skills, etc. It's a difficult movie to watch, but an excellent one. In many ways, the weirdest thing is the lovely, lilting Brazilian music providing a constant background to so many on-screen horrors. So, if you've been casting around for things to add to your Netflix list, those are my offerings. Talking to Technorati: San Francisco, 1906 Earthquake, 50 First Dates, City of God, Cidade de Deus

You just need to know which groups it's okay to insult

2006-03-08T09:46:00.000-08:00

Via Michelle Malkin we learn that, in Saskatchewan, it's okay to publish a cartoon that simultaneously manages to be revolting, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian -- and this from a paper that refuses to run the Mohammad cartoons for fear of offending Muslims. Only go to this link if you're prepared to be offended by a gross, mean-spirited and sacrilegious image. I'm still trying to decide here if those students would also have offended Muslims if they weren't afraid of being killed, or if they have compartmentalized the world so that Muslims are always the "good guys," with Christians and Jews the "bad guys."

Indoctrinating teachers

2006-03-08T09:29:00.000-08:00

Not a lot of time to write right now, so I'll just give you a heads up that, if you're as hostile to the National Education Association as I am, you'll find this Sol Stern article riveting.

Protecting sensibilities at Harvard

2006-03-07T14:04:00.000-08:00

If you read this article in yesterday's Harvard Crimson, you'll see that, as part of the abortion debate, Harvard students are being assaulted with an atrocious image:

“I personally find the image disgusting and don’t want to walk past it everyday,” said Nichele M. McClendon ’06, who said she did not tear down any posters. “It doesn’t have to do with abortion as an issue or free speech; it’s about being decent and not being disgusting.”

Of these same posters, another student characterized the image as a "shocking picture." As I type this, I can hear you asking, "What are these images?" Are they posters from pro-Life groups showing dismembered fetuses in garbage cans? Are they posters from pro-Choice groups showing dead women in puddles of blood, with coat hangers protruding from between their legs? Well, no, although they're being defaced and removed as rapidly as if they were. Here's a little more information about the poster uproar at Harvard:

Posters depicting in utero fetuses raised eyebrows and a small uproar last week. One of the posters, the second in a series created by Harvard Right to Life (HRL), featured the picture of a fetus named Elena with the words, “I’m 25 days old...and my heart already BEATS!!”

Whatever your position on the abortion debate, it strikes me as profoundly bizarre when college students characterize as disgusting and shocking a picture of a living fetus. I still remember when I had my first ultrasound for my first child and saw for the first time the delicate string of pearls that was her 16 week old backbone. It was many things -- moving, stunning, beautiful, etc. -- but it certainly wasn't shocking or disgusting. Hat tip: Suitable for Mixed Company Talking to Technorati: Fetuses, Ultrasounds, Abortion, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Advertisements, Harvard, Free speech

In Paris, it's 1933 all over again

2006-03-07T09:02:00.000-08:00

What's absolutely awful about reading this article about the murder of Ilan Halimi is that it could be rewritten with minimal changes (change "France" to "Germany", change "Muslim" to "Nazi") to describe the situation German Jews faced in 1933. I keep being amazed that it's taken Europe only 70 years to position itself to repeat the Holocaust.

Reason #48743934 to get rid of the UN

2006-03-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Rich Lowry delivers himself of a beautifully written diatribe castigating the foul UN Human Rights Commission. You know you're reading something good when you find language like this in the first few paragraphs:

Bolton had hoped to change the commission and infuse it with some of its old idealism. Nothing doing. He’s finding that at the U.N. Augean Stables, the cattle always prevail. The 53-country human-rights commission’s abiding flaw is that it has no standards for membership. So, bloodthirsty tyrannies sit on it together with liberal democracies. Given the let’s-all-get-along bonhomie of the United Nations, they all operate based on a vaporous consensus that strips the commission of any purpose. China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Zimbabwe are all current members, ensuring ample representation of governments interested only in preserving their ability to jail their dissidents, repress their women and despoil their countrysides.

Good writing to make a good point about an evil institution -- who could ask for more?

The male problem in China

2006-03-07T07:20:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post, I wondered what was going to happen in America as we urge feminization on our men and deny them the military as a good place to channel ordinary testosterone energy. I also noted that, traditionally, military service was a good way for a society to take that male energy and direct it away from the men's own society and onto someone elses. Here's the flip side for you to think about: China, thanks to its one child policy, the fact that males are favored over females, sonograms, and abortions has an unnaturally large population of surplus males. Do you think China is going to teach these extra men -- men who have no women to domesticate them -- that war is bad and they should explore their feminine side, or do you think China will chose the traditional route for directing that male energy away from China itself? Talking to Technorati: Men, China, Surplus men, Military service

It's a G'Day to be Gay

2006-03-06T20:38:00.000-08:00

Reading this article about the enormous success of Sydney, Australia's, cross between a Gay Pride and Mardi Gras parade reminded me vividly of the last time I saw San Francisco's Gay Pride parade. I didn't have children then, I was a good, card-carrying liberal, and I still left feeling the event feeling slimed. For the most part, what I saw wasn't a parade about people who happen to be gay, but are proud of their lives -- although there were contingents of gay S.F. cops and firefighters, wearing their uniforms, and attesting to the change in those formerly macho domains. There were also parents who are proud of their gay children, and gay parents with children. All of it celebrated life. What creeped me out was that at least 50% of what was on parade was sex -- not sexuality, not sexual orientation, not gender identity, but pure, raw sex. Parading down the City streets were naked people, people decked out in little leather strings, people being dragged about by leashes, people in bizarre masks, people whipping each other, and more that I seem to have forgotten or don't want to remember. I concluded then that I'm happy to witness a joyous celebration of a life free from fear and prejudice, which is what I'd always understand a gay pride parade to be. I'm way less interested in having my city streets opening up to the equivalent of a moving S&M Sex Club. And that is what I thought off when I saw this in the Times:

Tom Sellers busily adjusted white cowboy chaps over the underwear of dozens of gay men, handed out sequin-trimmed pink and blue cowboy hats and tied glittery bandannas to best effect around everyone's necks.

[Holli Hollitzer/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images]
As dusk fell, Mr. Sellers and his group, inspired by "Brokeback Mountain," were geared up (or, in some cases, geared down in bare buttocks) to take their place in Australia's venerable Mardi Gras gay pride parade, which cavorted through crowd-lined streets here Saturday night. [Emphasis mine.]

To me, this just isn't family friendly fare.

Hmmm.... I wonder why?

2006-03-06T19:27:00.000-08:00

I'm sure that somewhere in Hollywood, perhaps in Barbra Streisand's living room, George Clooney, Barbra, Warren, Rob Reiner, and a few others, are gathered together, trying to figure out why this happened:

It was one of those rare Oscar weekends when not one nominated movie made it into the top 10. Neither the Academy Award hopefuls nor the four wide releases entering the market did enough business to dislodge Tyler Perry's "Madea's Family Reunion" from first place. "Madea's" took in an estimated $13 million, bringing its two-weekend total to about $48.1 million. Its closest competitor, the Bruce Willis-Mos Def vehicle "16 Blocks," grossed about $11.7 million in its debut. Other newcomers in the top 10 were the Milla Jovovich sci-fi/action movie "Ultraviolet" with $9 million in fourth place, mermaid-out-of-water comedy "Aquamarine" in fifth with $7.5 million, and the hip-hop musical documentary "Dave Chappelle's Block Party" in seventh with $6.5 million.

Unlike the luminaries I named, I can discern a trend in what's popular and what's not.

Apres les metrosexuals, les deluge?

2006-03-06T15:30:00.000-08:00

Despite having seen some of the most bloody fighting World War II had to offer (five years in North Africa and Southern Europe), my father still looked back on his service as the best time in his life. He loved the camaraderie, the discipline, the purpose -- and he loved the right to be aggressive. I'm not saying that my father was an unusually violent or aggressive man. He was simply a young man with a lot of normal testosterone flowing in his body. There's no getting away from the fact that this testosterone almost certainly elevates aggression -- not weird, psychopathic aggression, but the kind that leaves a man hot under the collar when a store clerk is impolite, while his wife manages to ignore the whole thing. I also don't think my father was unusual in finding war stimulating. I gather from Milblogs, from military memoirs, from psychological studies, etc., that many men do not find military service entirely distasteful, even during war time. If one accepts as true my premise that ordinary, well-socialized young men with appropriate testosterone levels are more prone to aggression, it falls to a society to figure out how to channel that aggression. Throughout history, war has been one way of doing so -- indeed, probably the primary way of doing so -- since it takes that male energy, focuses it away from the community, and uses it to acquire land and wealth (and, in the old days, labor in the form of slaves). This leads me to the question lurking behind this post: what happens when you make military service a societally unacceptable option for young men and, indeed, encourage young men to feminize themselves? I think that's certainly true in our society, especially among the middle and upper classes. Examples: **Middle class schools are actively teaching their young people that there is no such thing as a moral war, or moral military service. I've documented that fight here. Just the latest kerfuffle in this battle for young men arises because of the students in Maryland who protested the "Peace Studies" course taught at their school. **Metrosexuals are all the rage. For those of you unversed in this new terminology, metrosexuals are liberated young men perfectly comfortable wearing makeup and dishing dirt with the girls, all the while identifying themselves as heterosexuals. They're not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that), they're just femi-men. At my local mall, I see young men at the department store with bouffant hairstyles, carefully applied makeup, delicate lip gloss, and bare midriffs -- looking much more beautiful and feminine than the girls attached to their arms. **Men in movies are young and soft. No rugged Clark Gable, Gregory Peck or John Wayne to be seen. They're pretty boys: Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio and Orlando Bloom. Kimberley A. Strassel is not alone in lamenting the missing American man at the movie theater. **At the Olympics, it used to be that the women were pretty and graceful, while the the men were strong and at least pretended to be macho. Now, the women are pretty damn strong, and the men are just as pretty and graceful -- and flutteringly costumed -- as their female counterparts. I don't even want to watch any more. As the French say, "Vive la difference" and when there's no difference, why bother? Speaking of the French, think of this: In the French revolution, these pretty, powdered, patched, and pompadoured men: were utterly defeated by these men: In other words, in the fight between manly men and femi-men, I wouldn't waste my money betting on the latter. Please understand that I'm not arguing for a return to women as second class citizens, nor am I demanding that men prove themselves by grunting and going out to kill people. I am saying, though, that we're embarking willy-nilly on a major cultural experiment in which we feminize our men. At this time of world turmoil, the probable outcome of this experiment leaves me feeling less than secure. UPDATE: I just wandered over to The Telegraph and, coincidentally, there was this nice article about Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo. It's a male dance troup that's been around a long time, and is part of a burlesque tradition of drag performances, but I can't resist including this picture to end this post: UPDATE II: Welcome, American Thinker readers. Needless to say, I'd be delighted if you'd stay a while and check out the whole blog. Talking to Technorati: Metrosexuals, Military service

Wolves in sheep's clothing

2006-03-06T10:09:00.000-08:00

I think people are entitled to whatever political views they've concluded are correct. What irks me regarding the MSM is its pretense that it has no political views and that it's engaged in objective reporting. I'd start reading the NY Times again in a minute if it would forthrightly admit that it is a paper aimed at furthering the Democratic party platform. I wouldn't feel as if I and all the other readers are being lied to by something that feeds us news with an agenda, but denies the agenda exists. The same holds true for what's going on at universities. They cling to the ridiculous pretense that they're institutes teaching objective information, free from any biases. Come on, Columbia! Just start admitting that you're a Marxist, anti-Semitic institution. That way, my liberal Jewish friend's child, who is intrigued by the Marxist agenda, might hestitate to apply based on the freely admitted anti-Semitic part. Anyway, apropos of this point, I liked this bit from David Horowitz's most recent article regarding his book exposing college professors:

A principal theme of my book (unmentioned by its critics) is that faculty radicals have transformed entire departments and fields into political parties whose agendas have little or no relation to any activity that could be called scholarly. Thus Women’s Studies are not about an academic inquiry into the nature, history and sociology of women. Instead, Women's Studies is the Party of Feminism on campus. Similarly, Peace Studies is not about a scholarly inquiry into the causes of war and peace. It is the Party of Anti-American, Anti-Military, Sympathy for the Terrorists. And this, by the way, is not a small movement. There are 250 such “Peace Studies” programs on campuses across the country. The one at Ball State is headed by a Professor of the Saxophone; the one at Purdue by a member of the central committee of Angela Davis’s Communist Party. It think this qualifies as “dangerous” and I think the broad public who will read this book is likely to agree.

He who pays the piper gets access to the dance hall

2006-03-06T09:54:00.000-08:00

Hurrah! The Supreme Court unanimously held that schhols that accept federal feds must allow military recruiters on their campuses:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the campus visits are an effective military recruiting tool. "A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.

Setting the Katrina record straight

2006-03-06T09:34:00.000-08:00

Sometimes sanity comes in strange places. This American Thinker article reviews a Popular Mechanics cover story that debunks all of the major (and, need I say, anti-Administration) myths surrounding Hurricane Katrina. I never thought much about Popular Mechanics, the magazine, but it's gone up in my estimation to astropheric heights for having the intellectual honesty to bring fact to hype.

Guess who did it?

2006-03-05T12:28:00.000-08:00

I (Don Quixote) was watching one of my junk TV series (Without a Trace, I believe) and within the first five minutes the show introduced the possibility that an environmental group committed the kidnapping. I turned to my wife and said, "Well, one thing is guaranteed; the environmental group didn't do it." Sure enough, the bad guys were the greedy businessmen from the start-up drug company. It's a shame that Hollywood is so very predictable, but it raises the wider issue. The Left has made so much progress in its war against America by controlling the MSM and the education system. How can those of us who care about America take back those institutions or what other means can we use to defeat them?

More feminist myths foisted on women

2006-03-05T09:48:00.000-08:00

Do you remember that famous perfume commercial for Enjoli? While a silk-clad woman slithered across the screen, a lusty-voiced woman belted out:

I can bring home the bacon, Fry it up in a pan, And never, never let you forget you're a man, Because I'm a woman, W O M A N

There you have it all in a neat refrain: the feminist superwoman, capable of working full time, managing a house, and curling up like a sex kitten in the boudoir after this 18 hour day. I think most women have figured out that this is, in fact, a myth. I'm not sure about the men. Back in the 1990s, I read a wonderful book called The Second Shift, by Arlie Hochschild. She examined the lives of married, working women. I'll never forget her conclusion. What she discovered was that those working women married to unabashed, 1950s style male chauvinists, actually got more help from their husbands than women married to sensitive 90s style guys. It turned out that the chauvinists placed much more value on house work, and the effort that goes into it. When their wives had to work, they realized what a sacrifice that was, and pitched in around the house. The touchy-feely 90s style guys, however, had been raised on the Enjoli commercial and were convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that their wives could, in fact, bring home the bacon, fry it up it the pan, and sizzle in the bedroom. To the extent that sensitive guys helped around the house, in an ostensible spirit of equality, that help proved to be illusory. Thus, an earnest sensitive guy would explain that he was responsible for all outside chores, while his wife was responsible for all inside chores -- which sounds like a fair division of labor. In fact, analysis showed that he took the garbage out once a week and mowed the lawn every two weeks, while his wife did all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry, household finances and, of course, child care (during Nanny's time off). All told, if I remember correctly Hochschild discovered that the wives of sensitive guys put in an extra month's work annually compared to their equality-aware husbands. I have a suspicion that Hochschild's findings still hold true today. Can anyone direct me to a recent study on this point? Talking to Technorati: Feminism, Working women, Working mothers, Sensitive guys, Gender equality

Challenging family values on both coasts

2006-03-04T20:40:00.000-08:00

[The following is a rewrite of one of my earliest posts, which I wrote when I first started the blog. I've polished it a bit, but am re-doing it here, since I think it has a certain relevance this Oscar year.] In 2004, I saw Disney's on-stage version of The Lion King, which had been hugely successful on Broadway, and I just hated it. As you may recall, the charmless plot opens with a ridiculous scene of prey animals worshipping their predator, and then goes downhill from there, focusing on cubs with attitude. It's true that the stage show offers impressive puppets and costumes but, after ten minutes of that, you're left with an icky plot line; bad dialogue; soggy, politically-correct lyrics; lousy (but loud) music; and dancing that looks as if it was choreographed by an aerobics teacher. Underlying all these specific grievances, I just feel that there is something a little bit unwholesome about the Lion King, something anti-family. At about the same time in 2004 that I saw The Lion King, I also saw PBS' six part show about Broadway's musical history. The show's first four episodes are really great fun, since they take one all the way back to the Ziegfeld era. The last two episodes are pretty much devoted to the openly gay Stephen Sondheim and modern Broadway Disney-fication and big corporate shows (Les Miz, etc.). These same last episodes also cover the impact AIDS has had on Broadway. One of the people interviewed said that AIDS devastated Broadway, because Broadway "is gay men." And that statement struck me, because that was not always true about Broadway. Thinking back to Broadway from the turn of the century through the early (even late) 50s, Broadway may have had its share of gay men, but it certainly wasn't "about" them. To begin with, the producers and directors, men such as Ziegfeld, Irving Berlin, and Bob Fosse, certainly weren't gay. Likewise, the composers during Broadway's heyday were, for the most part, heterosexual. Think of big names such as Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Jerome Kern, Rogers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe, Richard Rogers, and Dorothy Fields. The same heterosexuality holds true for the big name Broadway performers from the 20s through the 50s, men such as Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Eddie Cantor, John Raitt, and W.C. Fields. I haven't forgotten that some famous talents were indeed gay. For example, the extraordinarily talented Lorenz Hart and Cole Porter were both gay, and both men led difficult lives try to hide their sexual orientation. Nor am I ignoring the fact that some Broadway hits, which we view today as innocent and innocuous, were considered hardhitting for their times. Two easy examples are Showboat, which, in 1927, tackled racism, and Finian's Rainbow which did the same thing twenty years later. I'm also not saying that classic Broadway performers and creative talents lived wholesome lives (Kaufman and Ziegfeld, for example, were both notorious womanizers). Indeed, I'd hate to examine the private lives of many of the talents I named above. Nevertheless, for the most part, they lived lives that were at least superficially in synch with middle-America (that is, marriage and children), and their shows were in synch with these same values. One can't say the same thing about recent Broadway offerings. Without in any way challenging the quality or craftsmanship of the shows, I'm not sure there is anything charming or uplifting about Urinetown, The Full Monty, Sweeney Todd, Assassins, Chicago, and Rent. I'm not saying here that art always portray life in an artificially sunny, pure way. Artists have always used their medium to help challenge and broaden their audiences. I do feel, though, that the Coastal art communities have gone out of their way in the past twenty or thirty years to portray middle-class American life as banal and evil (think American Beauty, the critically acclaimed movie), and the fringe lifestyle as normal and joyous. And this lopsided view is every bit as dishonest as one that paints everything in halcyon "Father Knows Best" colors. I'm also not saying that gay men should be driven out of entertainment, or forced back into the closet. Perish the thought. Frankly, I don't think it's a coincidence that so many gay men are drawn to the performing arts. It seems to provide a haven and an outlet for young men who fit uneasily into the regular world. However, I do think that if Broadway wants to retain its relevance and popularity, it would do well to imagine an audience beyond the threater groupies clustering around Times Square. Indeed, although I find the Disney Broadway shows charmless (see how I started this post), they did in fact revitalize Broadway by bringing it back to its mainstream-ish roots. Talking to Technorati: Broadway, Musicals, Irving Berlin, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Richard Rogers, Lorenz Hart, W.C. Fields, Eddie Cantor, Gay men, Homosexuality, The Lion King

This wouldn't have surprised her at all

2006-03-04T19:46:00.000-08:00

Helen MacInnes wrote some of the best Nazi and Cold War thrillers. I've blogged before about how prescient some of her books were (see here, here and here.) I've been reading the last book MacInnes wrote before her death, Ride a Pale Horse, a 1984 effort about the waning years of the Cold War. Once again, I've been struck by the fact that she could as easily be writing about the cold aspects of the War we're facing now as about the Cold War itself. This time, the subject is disinformation. We're awfully familiar with it right now. Indeed, the AP gave a perfect example of disinformation this past week, when it let ride for a week a patently incorrect story claiming that Pres. Bush always knew that the levies in the Big O would breach. Other recent examples with horrific outcomes have been the imaginary Jenin massacre, the faked Mohammed al Dura death, and the incorrect "flushed Koran" that led to riots. But it turns out that this kind of skilled lying to manipulate the masses is nothing new in the ideological wars of the last 60 years. The scene I'm thinking of in MacInnes' 1984 book is a conversation between her heroine, Karen Cornell, an unbiased reporter just returned from a "peace" conference in Prague, and her editor, Schleeman, an equally unbiased journalist (proving that MacInnes didn't get everything right):

The meeting was ended. Not yet, thought Karen. "I have been doing some thinking. On disinformation. I could write two articles at least on that subject -- if I had some solid facts as a basis." "Disinformation?" That had caught his attention. He dropped the pen back on the desk. "It's important -- something we all ought to be aware of. Most of us don't really know the difference between misinformation and disinformation." "But you know now -- since Prague?" He was amused but interested. "Give me an example of that difference, Karen. No fancy language: just a simple explanation that any ignorant layman -- like myself -- can understand." He is challenging me, she told herself. All right, let's show him this isn't just a Prague-inspired notion. "The scene is Paris. An attempt to shoot Mitterand as he was entering his car. The actual facts are that he wasn't hit, his driver was wounded, and the two assailants escaped. "An early press report of the incident said that Mitterand was wounded and his chauffeur was killed; two, possibly three terrorists had done the shooting. That report is a case of misinformation. "Another press report starts appearing. It says that an attack on Mitterand took place; he wasn't hit but his driver was wounded. The two assailants have been identified as gunmen used in previous killings by a West German intelligence agency. A reliable source states that the assassination of Mitterand was to have been followed by a right-wing coup, establishing in power a French general favored by fascist elements in Germany." Karen paused. "And that report is pure disinformation." She knew what she was talking about. Schleeman nodded his approval. "It includes a fact or two to make a story credible, then adds the distortions." And people fell for it: the riots in Pakistan four years ago, the burning of the American Embassy and two Americans killed -- all the result of skilled disinformation. The lie that had lit the fuse? The Americans were responsible for the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the CIA being the villains. [Bolded emphasis mine.] (pp. 39-40.)

Talking to Technorati: Disinformation, Misinformation, Helen MacInnes, MacInnes

Dealing with the inevitable

2006-03-04T19:30:00.000-08:00

This story was predictable as of 2000:

Zimbabwe has only two weeks of wheat supply left, while citizens are faced with soaring bread prices, Zimbabwe's main milling organisation has said. The cost of bread has risen by 30%, pushing Zimbabwe's inflation rate to more than 600%. Zimbabwe has been in economic decline since President Robert Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms in 2000.

I wonder what the West's obligations are. It seems inhumane not to ship in wheat to alleviate the starvation of the innocents. However, it's obvious that doing so will prop up another truly evil African dictatorship. That is, if we send wheat and other supplies, Mugabe gets to continue in power, pursuing his evil policies, and letting the West sustain his people at a minimal level -- too much food to die, too little food to rebel. Talking to Technorati: Zimbabwe, Mugabe, Western aid, Famine

Too little, too late

2006-03-04T08:32:00.000-08:00

First you stir up a furor through an erroneous rep;ort, with the mistake obviously deliberate. Then you let it ride for a week, causing political damage to the administration. Then, late on a Friday night, you issue this mealy mouthed correction:

In a Wednesday story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his Homeland Security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing. The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking. The day before Katrina, Bush was told there were grave concerns the levees could be overrun. It wasn’t until the next morning, as the storm made landfall, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had asked about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.

And then you wonder why you, the American media, are even less trusted than the President you're attacking.

Reporter, educate thyself!

2006-03-03T18:03:00.000-08:00

I'd be doing you a huge disservice if I didn't tell you that Patrick, my favorite Paragraph Farmer, has had published in the American Spectator, an article that points to the damage done to information reported by a press that has no knowledge about the military:

There are journalists doing yeoman work to correct public ignorance about military matters. The late Michael Kelly was one such person; Robert Kaplan, Bill Roggio, and Mike Yon are three others. Sadly, their reporting is too often brushed aside for you-are-there bromides from the well-traveled but inexpert likes of correspondents like Christiane Amanpour.

Read the whole thing here. Patrick's article reminded me of the damage done to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by ill-informed reporters. In his review of Stephanie Gutmann's book, The Other War (a review that is available by subscription only), Hillel Halkin points out that, while the region is saturated with reporters, few of them have any actual knowledge about the region, about the history, or about the nature of the conflict. They're just bureau hacks, relocated from one foreign spot to another. This ignorance allows them to be manipulated by masterful propagandists. Thus, as Joseph Tartakovsky says in a Claremont Institute review of the same book:

If freedom is disadvantageous, this goes double when you happen to abut a shameless, propagandizing Arab dictatorship. According to Gutmann, the Palestinian Authority under Arafat used "the combat theatre (the West Bank, Gaza, and inside Israel) as a kind of soundstage." Those famous scenes of Palestinian boys with rocks confronting soldiers, for example, are usually choreographed. Palestinian youths, exhorted by parents, teachers, and their televisions to pelt Israeli soldiers, are so conscious of the media presence themselves that they often don't start in with the stones until photographers arrive. Israeli soldiers are actually forewarned of clashes when film crews suddenly materialize. (Coalition forces have experienced the same phenomenon in Iraq.) How do these reporters or photographers, on a quest for dramatic stories and footage, know where the "spontaneous" violence is to "erupt"? One or another foot soldier in their "small army of Palestinian fixers" is tipped off by the attackers. The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Press (which together supply 80% of news images to the world media) require the assistance of natives who speak the local language, know who's who, and can get things done. These hired locals, in turn, make decisions about where to drive and what to translate (or leave un-translated). The Palestinian regime isn't brutal in the way of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but its operatives are trained in the same school of media manipulation. On September 12, 2001, as the Middle East awoke to the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., Palestinians in several cities took to the streets. The celebration in Nablus, estimated at 3,000 people, was filmed by an A.P. photographer who forwarded the footage to his bureau in Jerusalem. Before it hit the wire, the photographer called his bureau again, this time sitting in the Nablus governor's office with guns to his head. The reporter lived, but the truth did not. The A.P. was told by the Palestinian Authority that it "could not guarantee their safety" in the future unless the A.P. learned to be "more careful." Regime propaganda is pervasive. TV spots feature inspirational poetry like "how beautiful is the scent of the land, which is fed from the waterfall of blood, springing from an angry body." In April 2002, an Israeli drone flying above a funeral procession in the city of Jenin caught on tape a Palestinian corpse falling off his bier, reproving his handlers, then hopping back on. It happened again in the midst of a crowd, sending bystanders fleeing in terror. It was part of an effort to inflate both the body count and the number of photo-ops.

You only fall for this kind of crude propaganda if you're too ignorant to recognize it for what it is. Our media has us trained to believe that reporters have knowledge denied ordinary people. That simply isn't true. Most are good writers. Many are generally educated. Some are specifically well-informed. That means that the greatest likelihood is that you'll be reading a well-written, pithy, opinionated, ill-informed article by someone with a lot of biases and little knowledge.

Hollywood and simple patriotism

2006-03-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

With the Oscars on the horizon, today's National Review has launched a series of columns about the movies nominated for Oscars and about movies in general. (You can see some of these articles here, here and here.) All of these entertaining, interesting articles make essentially the same point: modern Hollywood hates America; hates Capitalism (despite the fact that Hollywood is a bastion on money-driven enterprise); wants Americans to be informed about how awful we are to gays, minorities, women, misunderstood Muslim fanatics, etc.; and would dearly love to see evil America fail in its efforts abroad. In light of the steady flow of hate-filled pictures coming out of Hollywood nowadays, I keep thinking of the old Hollywood movies. Those who know me, know that Turner Classic Movies is my favorite channel. I'm especially fond of old musicals and, of those musicals, I reserve my softest spot for the war musicals. What characterizes these movies, uniformly, regardless of studio, is the fact that they portray soldiers as decent human beings (not idiots and psychopaths), women as spunky help mates (not downtrodden victims of male oppression), and the war as an important effort to preserve invaluable freedoms (not as a grotesque American effort to impose its Imperial ideas on innocent victim nations). While the movies are filled with jokes about the discomfort of military service, and don't shy away from the fact that soldiers die, these are not presented as criticisms of the War, the government, or the military. Instead, these are common denominators that characterize all Americans, whether those who serve or those who stay behind, and references to them serve as bonds between free citizens in a nation at war. Hollywood also felt free to advance American political objectives. America was always worried about Latin America siding with the Nazis and creating a Southern Front against which America would have to defend. Thus, while Evita Peron become a darling of modern pop culture wailing "Don't Cry for me Argentina," during her political heyday, she and her husband were big Hitler fans and posed a serious security risk to America. (Shades of Hugo Chavez, except that he's crawling out from the Left, not the Right.) It was therefore extremely important that the U.S. maintain good relations with Latin America and, to this end, it took steps to reinforce the Good Neighbor Policy Roosevelt had started upon first taking office. Hollywood happily jumped onto this bandwagon, making sure that Latin American culture and (especially) music were featured prominently and positively in American films. (My favorite example of this genre is Disney's The Three Caballeros.) So, if you're in the mood for a little old-fashioned, unembarrassed patriotism, bolstered by some sparkling 40s music, why don't you check out some of my favorites: This is the Army (which prominently features Ronald Reagan and future Senator George Murphy) Two Girls and a Sailor Up in Arms Thank your Lucky Stars Hollywood Canteen (a bit heavy, but highlights Hollywood's commitment to the war effort) Stage Door Canteen (same, but this time showing the Broadway commitment to the war effort) For Me and My Gal (set in WWI, but obviously about WWII) Anchors Away (too maudlin even for me, but nevertheless quite good, and it also exemplifies the Good Neighbor angle) This is only a partial list, off the top of my head, but each movie is a reminder of a time when Hollywood moved with, not against, America; when the dominant paradigm was that America was a good guy; and when our major independent (that is, not government controlled) media outlet worked to help the American people cope with the burdens of war. Talking to Technorati: War, Anti-war, Hollywood, War movies, Musicals, Anti-Americanism, Good Neighbor Policy

What's wrong with this picture?

2006-03-03T08:06:00.000-08:00

Whenever I find myself conveniently near a Whole Foods store, I stop in to shop. The produce, though expensive, is some of the most beautiful and flavorful around. The meats have all been humanely raised, which matters to me. (I'm a cheerful carnivore, but I feel much better eating meat from an animal that lived a quality animal life, than from one that spent its short life in unpleasant surroundings antithetical to its animal needs.) The dry goods are delicious, and you can find tasty family treats free from hydrogenated oils, which makes me feel they're healthier. Permeating the whole store -- part of its ethos, I guess -- is respect for the earth and for the environment. Everything is sustainably farmed and, if possible, organic. You can spend way too much on chocolates that carry the manufacturer's promise to give every penny of profit back to a "save the rain forest" group. It's all about what we can do for Mother Nature. And that's why I always get a kick out of the fact that, when my shopping experience is done, when I've worked my way through the checkout line (glancing at very serious magazines about Yoga, Astrology and Environmentalism), I look up to discover that my groceries have been double bagged. Every time. Yesterday, I bought four boxes of crackers (they probably weigh a pound all together), and the bagger carefully placed this lightweight, small collection of goods in two heavy paper bags. Can we say unclear on the concept? Talking to Technorati: Whole Foods, Shopping, Environmentalism

Finding the job to suit your personality

2006-03-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

This stomach churning little story is clearly about someone who not only embraces a radical ideology, but who really likes his work:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi security forces have arrested a suspect in the 2004 kidnapping and beheading of a Japanese backpacker, officials said Thursday. The Interior Ministry identified the suspect as Hussein Fahmi, a 28-year-old al-Qaida in Iraq operative arrested over two months ago in western Baghdad. Fahmi confessed to carrying out 116 beheadings, including that of 24-year-old Japanese backpacker Shosei Koda, ministry official Maj. Raid al-Mafraji said. Fahmi, who is of Egyptian and Palestinian descent, was captured by the Interior Ministry’s counterinsurgency Wolf Brigade after a tip from local residents, al-Mafraji said. “We managed to arrest three other terrorists with him and seized a huge amount of weapons,” he said. Japan’s chief Cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, said Tokyo had not yet received confirmation from Iraqi authorities of the arrest. Koda was killed by militants in October 2004 after Japan refused to bow to their demands and pull its troops out of Iraq. His decapitated body was found wrapped in an American flag in a Baghdad street. Al-Qaida in Iraq, led by the country’s most wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping and beheading in a Web posting that included a gruesome video of the killing.

My point being that, in this day and age, you don't go around decapitating people unless it gives you a thrill. Hat tip: Little Green Footballs

Thanking my lucky stars

2006-03-02T13:18:00.000-08:00

In my community, there are basically three major retirement communities. One is for the truly sick. One is for the aging Maudes, and one is for the aging Donna Reeds. My Mom, who can no longer handle living in the multi-storied house that's been her home for so many years, is Donna Reed -- she's a lady to her fingertips, always immaculately turned out, and with the kind of classy old-fashioned manners one seldom sees anymore. I'm happy to report that she will be moving into the Donna Reed retirement community in the imminent future, a move made even better by the fact that it's seven minutes from my home, rather than the thirty-five minutes travel time it takes to get to her house. Hurrah!

Too scary to be funny

2006-03-02T09:52:00.000-08:00

Do you have a subscription to National Review? If you do, be sure to check out this Rob Long humor piece, which proposes a National Review trip to Europe, circa 2010. It's really funny, but also quite creepy insofar as it gives a comedic glimpse of what Eurabia might look like.

And this crisis's medal for extraordinary bravery goes to....

2006-03-01T20:07:00.000-08:00

This week's medal for extraordinary bravery goes to the following individuals:

Salman Rushdie - Indian-born British writer with fatwa issued ordering his execution for The Satanic Verses Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Somali-born Dutch MP Taslima Nasreen - exiled Bangladeshi writer, with fatwa issued ordering her execution Bernard-Henri Levy - French philosopher Chahla Chafiq - Iranian writer exiled in France Caroline Fourest - French writer Irshad Manji - Ugandan refugee and writer living in Canada Mehdi Mozaffari - Iranian academic exiled in Denmark Maryam Namazie - Iranian writer living in Britain Antoine Sfeir - director of French review examining Middle East Ibn Warraq - US academic of Indian/Pakistani origin Philippe Val - director of Charlie Hebdo

What did they do? They signed a letter, published in France, warning the world about Islamic totalitarianism. In light of Theo Van Gogh, in light of the cartoon riots, in light of the myriad beheadings and bombings around the world, in light of the cowardice the American press displayed, this is an extraordinary act of bravery, and should be lauded as such. Here's what the letter says:

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. Recent events, prompted by the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism between West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats. Like all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism is nurtured by fear and frustration. Preachers of hatred play on these feelings to build the forces with which they can impose a world where liberty is crushed and inequality reigns. But we say this, loud and clear: nothing, not even despair, justifies choosing darkness, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology that kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its victory can only lead to a world of injustice and domination: men over women, fundamentalists over others. On the contrary, we must ensure access to universal rights for the oppressed or those discriminated against. We reject the "cultural relativism" which implies an acceptance that men and women of Muslim culture are deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secularism in the name of the respect for certain cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it. We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma. We appeal to democrats and free spirits in every country that our century may be one of light and not dark. Signed by: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Chahla Chafiq Caroline Fourest Bernard-Henri Levy Irshad Manji Mehdi Mozaffari Maryam Namazie Taslima Nasreen Salman Rushdie Antoine Sfeir Philippe Val Ibn Warraq

Wow! I take my hat off to these brave people and hope that the weight of their names helps their message travel widely. You can do your bit, if you have a blog, by linking to this story at your blog and making sure this letter is read far and wide.

You've got to love the SF Board of Stupidvisors

2006-03-01T12:17:00.000-08:00

San Francisco is a beautiful city with a declining population, a huge homeless problem, a decaying infrastructure, rapidly retreating middle class families (due, no doubt, to the appalling public schools), and myriad other ordinary urban problems. But fear not -- the Board of Supervisors knows what the real issue is and where to put its energies:

San Francisco's supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city's Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.

As the same Chronicle article points out, this resolution isn't necessarily good news for SF's image nationwide:

The supervisors, in voting 7-3 for the resolution, made it likely that San Francisco again will become grist for radio and TV talk shows. The city has appeared in the national media spotlight recently for voters' passage in November of a nonbinding measure banning military recruiters from public high schools and for Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval's recent comment on a Fox News show that the United States doesn't need a military.

That's not stopping our heroes Downtown, where even the opposition is held back only by the act's futility, not its merits:

Supervisor Chris Daly, one of the most progressive members of the board, sponsored the resolution, which also calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Daly said the measure is justified in light of the administration's case for and handling of the war in Iraq, the federal government's inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and recent revelations about a domestic wiretapping program. "I think the case is clear, and I think it's appropriate for us to weigh in," Daly said. Speaking in opposition to the resolution, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier said, "I don't think that we need to be calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as much as we may not like them ... and as much as we don't like the policies that they put forward."

What comes out ultimate is that the Supes are frustrated by the fact that, in a our democracy, they're the minority party. What they really want to do is circumvent election outcomes:

In sending the resolution to Bay Area members of Congress, the supervisors addressed a frustrated group that is tired of being in the minority. "Real change in the direction of our country will come about when the Republicans no longer control the executive and legislative branches,'' said Rep. Tom Lantos of San Mateo, whose district includes the southwestern corner of San Francisco. "We need to take control of the House, elect more Democratic senators and take control of the White House in 2008.''

If they could have staged a military takeover, I'm sure they would have. Even Nancy Pelosi, the patron saint of the wackier side of the Demo party, had some practical advice for these malcontents:

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who represents much of San Francisco, was asked about impeaching Bush during a January town meeting at Marina Middle School. Pelosi, poised to become the first female House speaker if the Democrats win control in November's election, repeated Tuesday what she told her constituents: "Win the election. Then you can change the policy of our country.''

Lovely city, crazy politics -- pretty much status quo in the City by the Bay. Talking to Technorati: San Francisco, Board of Supervisors, Impeachment

The military talks about itself

2006-03-01T11:39:00.000-08:00

Did you know that the U.S. Central Command has its own website? As I've learned, this website has news, photos, video and audio from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom -- and to the extent these are coalition efforts, it offers contributions from all of the Coalition countries. For example, today you can learn about members of the American military assisting Iraqi orphans and about U.S. sailors rescuing stranded Iranian sailors. The last is especially interesting, because it strikes me that these six Iranian mariners, if they return to Iran, will be American Trojan horses, disseminating good news about America to their fellow Iranians.

Unions -- the dinosaurs among us

2006-03-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

Thomas Sowell writes here about the fact that unions continue to put forward the idea that one can get something for nothing -- an idea that is bringing down General Motors and that is making government ever more expensive and inefficient. I've long been hostile to unions. My Dad was a member of the Teacher's Union in the 1960s and 1970s. He was an old Communist, but he loathed the union, believing that it functioned solely to advance politically correct ideas about teaching that interfered with actual learning. (PC is nothing new.) The big fight then was about bilingual education which, in practical application, meant that Hispanic children got their entire education in Spanish, and never learned any English -- making it impossible for them to join the American economic mainstream. The one thing the union never succeeded in doing, and never really intended to do, was make sure that teachers got a living wage. It was, however, incredibly effective at keeping incompetent, and even dangerous, teachers in place, sucking of monies that could have been better used for the real teachers among the crowd. I got my own dose of unionism in the 1980s when I worked in a hospital. The union's stranglehold on the hospital meant that it was virtually impossible to fire the most incompetent -- and, in the context of healthcare -- dangerous employees. One just had to hold ones breath and hope they'd quit, which wasn't something people holding union benefits and job security would easily do. The problem with unions, I think, is that, in the early years of the 21st Century, they act is if we are experiencing the same management/labor asymmetry that characterized the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries. In those days, to make some sweeping generalizations, labor had no advantages at all: members of the bottom-most rungs of the working class were entirely uneducated, a huge number spoke no English, and they had limited mobility. In addition, there had no Legislation at their backs -- there were no minimum wage laws, no workplace safety laws, no anti-discrimination laws, etc. All power resided with the employer. The same is not true now. In States such as California, for example, the laws are so hostile to the employers, it's not even funny. The Unions of the 20th Century effectively won their war by smoothing out the asymmetries that used to characterize the employment relationship. Now, Unions have become parasites, forcing employees to become members, and sucking the life out of business, government, education and healthcare. To my mind, the purpose behind a union is to provide a more level playing field within which labor and management can fairly negotiate. Modern unions, however, focus their entire energies on emptying the cookie jar of money, and filling it up with political ideology. (Bad metaphor, I know, but heck....) UPDATE: Just for the heck of it, I'm throwing in here a story about a clash between environmentalists and union plumbers. I don't know who has the right of the underlying argument, but these two groups are certainly not pulling in the same liberal harness, despite the fact that they both espouse principles that have clustered on the leftier side of the political spectrum. Talking to Technorati: Unions, Labor, Management

Uh-oh

2006-03-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

Dick Morris, who is nobody's fool, says conservatives are guilty of hubris and willful blindness if they persist in their belief that Hillary is essentially unelectable.

Excusing evil

2006-02-28T08:50:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager tackles the fact that, in the West, it's always blame the victim time when it comes to Muslim violence (a view I find surprising from the group that spearheaded the civil notion that a woman cannot automatically be blamed for being raped). He offers some hypotheses to support this fairly obvious fact:

One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life. The second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained accordingly. And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors.

I'll agree with each of these theories, giving equal credit to all.

The MSM needn't get breathless about a coming Iraqi civil war

2006-02-28T08:46:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, the NYT breathlessly announced that civil war was imminent in Iraq. Showing more sense than can be seen in a year in the Grey Lady's editorial room, the Sunnis backed down. The NYT's evident excitement about an incipient Civil War clearly has its roots in the NYT's determined effort to destroy Bush's effectiveness as a President, and to see him replaced in 2008 by a Clinton or Gore. Others who also recognize the possibility of a civil war don't see it as the political disaster the NYT dreams of. For example, John Mendez thinks a civil war would only be disastrous for the Sunnis since they, a minority, no longer have Saddam's military machine to back them up:

What these killers don’t seem to understand is that it is the threat of civil war not the actual initiation of hostilities that is the true bargaining chip. The Sunnis have yet to fully appreciate the monumental shift that has occurred in the Iraqi power structure. Like Saddam before them, the Sunni leadership fails to grasp that they no longer have a monopoly on power. The feared Republican Guard is non-existent and Hussein’s chemicals will not rain down on the villages of the defenseless. Acts of violence will now be met with reciprocal attacks. The Sunnis are outnumbered, likely outgunned, and surrounded by a population that has, for the moment, forgiven but not forgotten yesteryear’s bloodbaths. The Sunnis may find that the today’s hated US “occupier” is tomorrow’s merciful defender. The Shiite and Kurds who make up the overwhelming majority of the population will make concessions in order to avoid bloodshed and to rebuild a nation where they now, for the first time in decades, have a political voice. However, once the general fighting of a true civil war begins, the Sunnis lose the ability to demand any concessions whatsoever and will find that the Shiites and Kurds will indisputably be much more heavy-handed than a US Marine.

Daniel Pipes is equally unperturbed by the threat of civil war:

Iraq’s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. When Washington and its allies toppled the hideous regime of Saddam Hussein, which endangered the outside world by beginning two wars of expansion, by building a WMD arsenal, and by aspiring to control the trade in oil and gas, they bestowed an historic benefit on Iraqis, a population that had been wantonly oppressed by the Stalinist dictator. *** The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely: · Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of a U.S. confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high. · Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago. · Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq’s political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war.” · Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. Vali Nasr, a professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School notes: “Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace.” Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

In other words, while civil war may be a messy tragedy at the local level -- and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen for the sake of the ordinary Iraqis caught in the endless vice of sectarian warfare -- it's not the Armageddon that the NYT desires.

The secret behind Bush Derangement Syndrome

2006-02-28T08:27:00.000-08:00

In an impressive article Vasko Kohlmayer, who grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia, details what the left is, what it hates, and why it hates America so much. He includes in the article the "why" behind Bush Derangement Syndrome:

In the light of our thesis, can you now see why the Left hates America so? Being intransigently anti-western, its raging hatred of America is an expression of its implacable hostility toward the West. Many have been likewise shocked and startled by the Left’s virulent hatred of George W. Bush. Seemingly boundless, the Left’s detestation of him is quite obviously out of all proportion to anything this decent and gallant man has done. Even the blind must see that the driving impetus behind his presidency is ultimately the safety and security of our country. Doing all he can to prevent another attack, he is also trying to ensure that Islamic fundamentalists will not emerge victorious from this conflict. This behavior will never commend him to the Left, and is precisely the reason why they hate him so much. George Bush is the West’s leader and champion in the current clash of civilizations. Bent as it is on the West’s destruction, the Left will never forgive him for it. It is most telling that in its loathing of George W. Bush, the Left is in complete agreement with Islamic fundamentalists. So much so, that bin Laden and others even use leftist arguments in their doom-threatening missives to the West. Is it any surprise, given that they both strive for the same goal and share the same enemy?

Science's three card monte

2006-02-28T07:31:00.000-08:00

While the MSM has assiduously been keeping America's attention focused on intelligent design, and waving it around as a sign that conservatives are messing with science, the real deal -- the real scientific manipulation -- is happening on the liberal side of the spectrum, says Michael Fumento. They've done so with respect to global warming:

Last September, after Hurricane Katrina, activists in lab coats saw a grand opportunity to tie the exceptionally violent hurricane season to global warming. A study in Science declared, "A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." But the researchers simply cut off their data at 1970, though public statistics go back to 1850. Using the full data set would have reversed the conclusion. Why did the editors and peer-reviewers at both JAMA and Science not insist on use of the full data set? Because slicing off inconvenient data is a time-honored tool of advocacy science.

They've done so with respect to the differences between men and women (obvious to every parent of boys and girls):

Yet published studies at least are subject to debunking. Try reading between lines that don't exist because journals refuse to publish them. Such was the case this month when Science killed a paper at the very last minute by respected British scientist Peter Lawrence. It criticized "the cult of political correctness" that insists men and women are born thinking alike. Editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy explained it didn't "lead to a clear strategy about how to deal with the gender issue" — as if Science hasn't published countless papers on global warming with no strategy on how to deal with it.

They've done so with respect to putting a "scientific gloss" on the Iraq War:

Some journal editors are completely unabashed about their chicanery. In 2004, The Lancet released ahead of publication and right before the 2004 U.S. presidential election an outrageous report claiming 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed since the U.S. invasion. Yet other calculations showed a range of 15,000 to 24,000 — and even Osama bin Laden claimed just "over 15,000." No matter, the Lancet's editor took the opportunity to blast "democratic imperialism" and said "the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts."

The same thing showed up again just this morning. CBS has released a poll boldly proclaiming that Pres. Bush's approval rating is down to an all time 34% low. Well! That must be true, since we all know that polls are a collection of carefully balanced data with narrow statistical probabilities of error. Not! Turns out that the poll was heavily weighted in favor of Democratic respondents, something CBS conveniently forgot to mention in the body of its article reporting the polling data. Wait -- I'm thinking of a new name for this one. How about "Pollgate"? One used to be able to rely on science as a bastion of objectivity in a subjective world. Indeed, that's the true nature of science -- the ability to use purely factual data to draw a replicatable and reviewable conclusion that doesn't yield to doctrinal persuasion. Once our science is corrupt, we have nothing left. Hat tip: Power Line; Drudge Report Talking to Technorati: Polls, Science

Hey, Mom! I'm a fascist

2006-02-27T18:43:00.000-08:00

I got a funny backhanded compliment from this blog. Here's how it describes my blog:

The ideas expressed here are as naively neo-con as dozens of other red-state blogs. Still, this blog's authors moderate their comment section and have thus created, unlike many political blogs, a worthwhile place to exchange opinion and dialogue with others.

That's okay. It disagrees with my ideas while respecting the civility that characterizes my blog. The funny part is how this little post about me is tagged: "politics, fascism." Yup -- we're all fascists, my friends.

Strange bedfellows

2006-02-27T17:28:00.000-08:00

If you needed any insight into the reductio ad absurdum of those on the liberal side of things, read this Mark Steyn article about gay marriage in Canada. It turns out that those pushing for gay marriage believe that, by pushing for polygamy, they'll create a wedge that will open space for gay marriage. They freely acknowledge that polygamy will benefit, and attract to Canada, Muslims. Where their logic breaks down is in forgetting that under Sharia law, homosexuality is punished by death. Talk about strange bedfellows! Talking to Technorati: Polygamy, Gay marriage

Oh, the places you'll go

2006-02-27T11:33:00.000-08:00

In today's Wall Street Opinion Journal John Fund expresses his dismay that Yale crawled all over itself to get Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the Taliban's former ambassador at large, as a student on its campus. I think Fund does a wonderful job explaining precisely why it is so repugnant that Hashemi is using up space at Yale. What also bothered me, which Fund doesn't touch on, is the fact that Hashemi, a cheerful and unrepentant spokesperson for a murderous, misogynist regime, is going to an institution that will reinforce his anti-Americanism. Keep in mind that Yale is the core institution in the Solomon Amendment litigation that's heading for the Supreme Court. (This is the one where Yale insists it receive federal funds despite refusing to allow American military recruiters on campus.) I'd be much more sanguine if Hashemi were at a more conservative institution (not that I can think of any off hand). But to think of him rolling around in the anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism that passes for education at America's Ivy Leagues is more than just a little disturbing. Talking to Technorati: Yale, Taliban, Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, Ivy League, Solomon Amendment

Bring out your dead

2006-02-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

If you're in the mood to be depressed, but informed, you can read this P. David Hornik article about the new anti-Semites' obsession with seeing Jews dead, with insulting the Jewish dead, and with denying Jewish deaths.

How can they tell?

2006-02-27T10:04:00.000-08:00

No surprise to hear that the PA, suffering from incompetence, graft, outright theft, and broken promises from Arab nations, is going broke:

International envoy James Wolfensohn said the Palestinian Authority faces financial collapse within two weeks now that Israel has cut off tax transfers in response to Hamas’ election victory. Even if the Palestinian Authority survived with emergency funding, the financial crisis could bring violence and chaos unless the Quartet of major peace mediators developed a long-term funding plan once a Hamas-led government is in place, Wolfensohn said in a letter released on Monday.

What took me aback in this little quotation is that Wolfensohn is worried that less money will bring "violence and chaos." And in this regard, I have to echo Dorothy Parker who, when she heard Calvin Coolidge was dead, said "How can they tell?" Considering that violence and chaos are the norm under Palestinian rule, I'm not seeing any big changes being threatened here. UPDATE: Well, we can all rest easy without the threat of "violence and chaos." The EU has decided to pay protection money to get the PA and its Muslim cohorts off its back. Always a wise move to submit to blackmail, that's what I say. Talking to Technorati: Palestinian Authority, Palestinians, European Union, Israel

Bush lied -- oh, never mind

2006-02-27T08:29:00.000-08:00

I'm a few days behind the curve, but I had to bring this to your attention if you haven't already seen it:

Yes, the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War — never really strong to begin with — has taken some real hits in recent weeks. And "Bush lied" — the anti-war mantra about the president, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction — looks the most battered. Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly. The first 12 hours of the tapes — there are hundreds more waiting to be translated — are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out. *** In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct." There's more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD. This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb. *** Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack. 9-11, anyone? In short, let us repeat: President Bush was right. We had to invade to disarm Saddam — otherwise, he would have completely reconstituted his chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons programs when inspectors left. [Emphasis mine.]

Of course, the likelihood of this penetrating the anti-War crowd grouped behind the "Bush lied" mantra is slender to nil. And it matters, because most of the broadcasters have shown themselves to be hostile to the President, and a recent poll shows that most Americans get their news from these same broadcasters.

Blogging from all over

2006-02-25T19:35:00.000-08:00

I've been out of the blogging loop for a week, but (fortunately) my blog friends have not. So here, in no particular order, is what's going on in my corner of cyberspace: Curt, at Flopping Aces, gives us the good news follow-up to a sad story. In 2002, Armando Garcia killed Deputy David March. The mills of the law ground slow but sure in the intervening years, and Armando Garcia, who fled to Mexico, is being extradited to the U.S. It's an interesting story, especially since it touches up death penalty issues. And, since this is Curt's blog, there's a whole lot of other interesting stuff. John O, at Brain Droppings, tackles one of my favorite subjects -- getting rid of the U.N. John also keeps us up to date about fairly bizarre Illinois politics, and all the guys throw in some great images (including some clever photoshopping). While I was away (and unaware), the story broke about the horrific way in which French Muslims gleefully, and in a true community spirit, tortured Ilan Halimi to death. Unsurprisingly, Gail, at Crossing the Rubicon, is all over this story, as she is on so many essential matters concerning the Middle East, and way its pathology spills out into other parts of the world. If you want to think about personal growth, not in a self-centered, "it's all about me" California way, but in the meaningful way of being a mature, rational, kind person, you've got to check out the posts at PalmTree Pundit. You'll especially want to read about the staggeringly limited lawyer who opined that stay-at-home Moms lead meaningless, simplistic lives. Okay, I have to admit that there is a lot at CDR Salamander that I simply don't get -- it's military insider stuff, written using military language. However, when I do get it, there's no one better. Phibian's latest postings include ways to get relatively unfiltered news from Iraq; news about the anti-American, anti-Semitic movie that's all the rage in Turkey; and a wonderful attack on NPR's Daniel Schorr, one of those "journalists" who makes my skin crawl. If you go to Out of the Binjo Ditch, you get the most amazing, eclectic information about all kinds of things. My jaw is still gaping from this story about a penis and a microwave. Since Steve is working his way through law school, you'll also get some pure legal principles, expressed with a clarity that bodes very well for Steve's future as a lawyer. (Or maybe I'm wrong. Aren't lawyers supposed to obfuscate? Anyway, I like it.) Here's a Catch-22 -- I learned from Ron, at Ron Down Under, that a mosque in LA has concluded that infidels cannot touch the Koran. Yet I was under the impression that serious Muslims believe the world needs to be converted to Islam. It's unclear how they imagination the conversion taking place without access to the book, but I suspect it probably has something to do with fire and sword.... Ol' Man River has been away from Scott's Conservative News and Commentary for awhile, but he's come back with a bang to blog about ending America's dependence on OPEC oil as a way to deplete terrorism's coffers. Turkeyhead gives us hope with a very funny commercial, and Scott picks up on CNN's sins of omission and South Korea's troubles. At Done With Mirrors, Callimachus shares with us how hybrids will change the road; blogs about how Britain, in its effort to silence loud-mouth idiots, is destroying freedom of speech; and reminds us that there is nothing new about the ongoing war between Sunnis and Shias -- and that's just the first three posts when I checked over tonight. Keep scrolling down and you'll keep learning something new. Using a Brent Bozell article about sex, culture and college, Mike, at The Deep Freeze, yearns for a simpler time, when sexuality didn't dominate all discourse. He also notes the irony in the fact that the same parents who want their kids to enjoy an utterly free sex life, are going to any lengths to control their kids' diets at schools. Go figure. Heather, at From the Word Go, is another one who covers a wonderfully broad range of topics. Visit her site and you can read about Turkish skaters (nice picture, too), prescient cartoonists, and the problems middle-class parents face in picking schools for their children. At the Paragraph Farmer, Patrick delves deeply into matters of faith, popular culture, and politics. He touches on the hypocrisy behind those college professors who attack the church as a rigid, hierarchical instititution, without looking at their own doctrinal Ivory Towers. Patrick has also launched a great running series of posts about aspects of our Western culture that are worth defending, and has started with music. As a musical simpleton myself, I especially appreciate this effort, as it expands my very limited horizons. I truly don't know where Kathryn, at Suitable for Mixed Company, finds the time to track down the wide variety of information she offers at her blog. In just the last two days, she's talked about Alan Dershowitz's new book, Larry Summer's firing (the faculty is thrilled, the students less so), George Washington's heroic refusal to be king (which probably saved this nation from Day One), and the last recovery of an F-14 Tomcat from a combat mission. Wow! Laer, at Cheat-Seeking Missiles, is another one who never seems to sleep, because everything of interest shows up at his blog. As did Callimachus, he talks about British attacks on free speech, the port lease kerfuffle, oil issues, etc. My favorite post from the last few days, though, is the one in which Laer withdraws a post because it contained errors. In an era when the MSM will fight to the last breath to defend articles that are blatantly false (while hiding or distorting actual news), I think this was an incredible graceful act, showing the kind of integrity we used to expect from our media. Jack, at News Snipet 'Blog, aims his intellectual weapons at Hillary's voucher rant; points out the nexus between the NEA and the AFL-CIO; notes that the silly book, Why Mommy is a Democrat, is an important part of the free speech we value, and a good idea; and shares a long post from a friend about how Judeo-Christian doctrines celebrate life. If you wander over to A Rose By Any Other Name, you'll be lucky enough to find a post about a truly American school concert and a long post about having children recognizing that life is not fair and that they need to take responsibility for themselves. I especially liked that last one, since it's been a real struggle for my daughter to take responsibility for herself. Whenever she gets in trouble, it's her brother's fault -- no matter the impossibility of laying the blame on him. I wish she was old enough to read and understand Anna's post. By the way, not all my blogfriends tack to the conservative side. At Out of the Binjo Ditch, which I mentioned above, Steve strikes me as an intriguing Democratic libertarian -- in other words, some might characterize him as an old-fashioned liberal (correct me if I'm wrong there, Steve) . The same is true at The Galactic Patrol and A Place to Talk About War. Both of those blogs defy easy political characterization, which is what makes them such interesting places to visit. Intelligent people who can sidestep a particular doctrine seem to bring true objectivity to analyzing the news of the day.

Who we are and what we stand for

2006-02-25T17:31:00.000-08:00

If you, like me, are a one-time liberal who looks on modern liberalism as an alien construct, you'll appreciate Richard Berry's American Thinker article about modern American liberalism. The whole article is (of course) excellent, but I was especially struck by this language:

In allying with the post-modern Left, American liberalism has broken the national compact. It has stepped outside the 230 year stream of American consensus. It rails shrilly against the American creed, civic and spiritual. It unreasoningly indicts the phenomenally successful American economic system. It heaps scorn upon idealistic American purposes in the world and, indeed, actually impedes as best it can every exercise of American self-defense. While American liberalism has morphed into post-modern Euro-leftism, the rest of America remains American, which is to say, thoroughly and congenitally anti-Left. The American mainstream upholds the American cultural tradition. The liberal-Left shills for multiculturalism. The American mainstream takes pride in America’s soaring historical achievements. The liberal-Left trashes that history and fabricates anti-historical propaganda. The American mainstream has always been and remains believingly and tolerantly Christian. The liberal-Left is aggressively agnostic and demands the de-Christianization of every American reference point, all in the guise of a false tolerance. The American mainstream is self-sacrificing and optimistic. The liberal-Left is almost comically narcissistic and devoured by bleak pessimism. The American mainstream wants to preserve and protect America and take her triumphantly into the future. The liberal-Left wants to overthrow the historical and actually existing America and replace her with the sort of Euro-Lefty utopia presently self-destructing before our very eyes in Old Europe.

This lends credence to my sense that I haven't changed much politically. It's the politics that have reoriented themselves around me.

I'm here . . . sort of

2006-02-25T15:57:00.000-08:00

I'm back, but I can't say I'm really back to blogging. After a week without any news whatsoever, I feel as if I was on Mars, not just a mountaintop. It will take me a day or two to reorient myself. I was thrilled to read the posts Don Quixote did in my absence. I knew he'd write things that were interesting, thought-provoking and engaging. My only problem is that he set up mighty big shoes for me to fill. I'm going to read a lot for the rest of the weekend, and try to assemble my thoughts so that, by Monday, I can make at least a pretence of following the quality posts DQ did.

What now for Israel

2006-02-24T19:32:00.000-08:00

I have a friend who is very well informed, but fond of Doomsday scenarios. He recently explained to me in great detail why he believes that Israel will soon implode. By his account, the left has essentially declared war on the right by calling in the military to forcibly evict the settlers. The right is arming and organizing armed rebellion. My friend firmly believed this will all end badly. Bookworm's readers are the best informed group of people regarding Israel I know of. Is my friend right? What is the situation in Israel? How do I answer my friend? And, while I'm at it, how should (and how will) Israel react to the threat of Iranian nukes? All those of you who come to the Bookwormroom for insights will have to check the comments, because I have none at all on this topic. But I'll bet Bookworm's readers do. Thanks in advance for your comments.

How dare H&R Block offer services to people!

2006-02-23T13:52:00.000-08:00

Just read a story in the newspaper that protestors are protesting at H&R Block. Block's crime is offering the service of loaning people money against their expected refund amount. People are taking advantage of the service even though the loan is really expensive. How dare Block offer a service that people actually want and are willing to pay dearly for? Seriously, don't these protestors have anything better to do, like maybe work for a living, so they can use Block's services, too? I'm reminded of those who protest Walmarts because, gosh, they offer things people want at low prices. As if this is a bad thing. Sorry to be so cranky, but we have here a willing buyer and a willing seller and a bunch of protestors who want to stick their noses into other people's business and dictate to them what they can and cannot do. Perhaps the biggest ill of our society right now (okay, one among many others; the competition is stiff) is that we've given up on the notion of individual freedom. True, I think taking out a loan from H&R Block is almost certainly a bad idea. But people should be permitted to make their own judgments about such things without having to wade their way through a bunch of protestors to do so. People should even have the right to make mistakes and learn from them. Individual freedom is not primarily about the Patriot Act or wiretapping. It's about allowing people to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. That's what our country used to stand for, and should stand for again.

We can kill murders, but we can't cause them discomfort?

2006-02-22T16:26:00.000-08:00

Terri Winchell suffered beyond imagining before she died. She was choked with a belt, hit on the head with a hammer 23 times, stabbed 4 times and raped before she died. Now, the state, having decided to kill her torturer, murderer and rapist (25 years later, 8 years longer than Terri's entire life), has put off his death for fear it might cause him discomfort as it killed him. Surreal. One is tempted to suggest that if he suffers a tenth as much as Terri suffered before she died, it's all to the good. But that raises an age-old question. Is revenge an appropriate purpose of the legal system? Consider that the whole reason for the legal system (especially the criminal part) to exist is to prevent members of the society from taking matters into their own hands and exacting their own revenge. Shouldn't a system that substitutes itself for personal revenge include an element of revenge itself? It has been fashionable for some time now to insist that the only proper purposes of the criminal justice system are rehabilitation (which the system doesn't seem to do very well) and deterrence (which the system doesn't seem to accomplish either). Before anyone says it, I'll readily grant that more should/could be done to prevent our citizens from becoming criminals. But the society must still deal with those who choose to break its laws. Please share your thoughts on the matter. How can the system be improved, both to more effectively enforce the law and to more effectively deal with those who break it? Personally, I'd start by repealing all "victimless crime" laws and focusing our limited resources on real crimes against society and its members. I look forward to your ideas.

Final thoughts on the ID discussion

2006-02-22T16:14:00.000-08:00

I am humbled by the depth of intelligence and breadth of insight in the comments on ID. When she returns, Bookworm will be very proud to see the quality of the dialogue and of her readership. I invite you to continue the discussion for as long as you find it productive, but in the interest of not becoming a one-note blog I'm going to move on to posts on other topics. Thank you all so much for taking the time to share your thoughts and especially for the constructive way you have all expressed yourselves.

Continuing the dialogue regarding intelligent design

2006-02-21T18:50:00.000-08:00

I've read so many wonderfully thoughtful comments to my last post that I'm going to post some of my responses and additional thoughts in the hopes of keeping the dialogue going. Thank you all for keeping the discussion positive and insightful. Earl, thanks for your many good comments, but I want to discuss your earliest question as to what theory is testable. The theory that life developed by chance (I'm intentionally shying away for Neo-Darwinist, and such labels) is likely not testable. But, assuming the intelligent designer still exists, ID should be testable. As I noted in the previous post, if the designer is no longer present, the whole discussion hardly matters, since it makes no practical difference to our lives that life came about by chance or by the design of an intelligence that is no longer present. But if the designer is still present, we should be able to detect the designer through scientific means. Proof of the designer would be powerful proof of the ID theory. I suppose that an intelligence great enough to create life would also be intelligent enough to avoid detection if it (I use "it" because it seems likely to me that the designer would be genderless) so desired, but why would it want to hide? Patrick, I liked your comment that you believe the designer is present and can be detected. Why not try scientific means to detect it? Joe, good to see you doing your homework, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. For example, if the question is why not teach ID in a religion class, it is a perfectly acceptable answer to say that religion classes don't exist in the vast majority of public high schools, so the question is pointless. You can't teach any theory, religious or not, in a class that doesn't exist. To Steve and Tatterdermalian, I share some of your skepticism, but I'm willing to accept the representations of the ID proponents at face value. Certainly, it is a logically consistent and defensible view that intelligent design is at least as likely as random design, and that view can be held with or without an accompanying religious belief that there was, in fact, a designer and that designer still exists. Mike, your last paragraph was inspiring and I'm so glad you find joy in your religion. I envy believers that joy, even though I don't share it. DRaftervoi, why would an intelligent creation leave behind no evidence? Presumably, the designer would continue to exist and could give us all the evidence we wanted if it chose to communicate. Conversely, the lack of evidence for a designer today suggests, though it by no means proves, that no such designer exists and, perhaps, no such designer ever existed. Exp, yes, the scientific method assume a "faith" in our own ability to observe. The difference is that sound scientific observations are replicable and not dependent on subjective experience or observations of a single person. That is why theories as to the origin of life are scientifically suspect, since they are difficult, if not impossible, to test and replicate. Kathryn, loved your comment and found it helpful as always. However, I think most honest scientists admit they don't know how life originated, and many scientists believe in an intelligent designer (see John Hetman's comment). I hope we can agree to view those who insist on either theory (chance or ID) as a matter of dogma with some doubt. The much more interesting question, at least to me, is whether a creator can be scientifically detected in the here and now. In this, I must admit to my personal bias. I was raised to believe in God and at one time fully intended to become a minister. What eventually stopped me in my tracks was the realization that there was not the slightest bit of empirical evidence that God exists in the here and now. Why would our "Father" play hide-and-seek with us -- appearing in some hearts but not others, appearing in vastly different ways to members of the different religions of the world, and never appearing in any objectively measurable way? No caring, loving human father would act this way and I cannot imagine a Godly Father acting in this way. I don't want to derail the delightful discussion we've been having so far, but if an intelligent designer exists (whether the Christian God or something else entirely) we should be able to detect it. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that such a designer would not be delighted to sit down with us (figuratively, of course) and discuss how it created life. On the one hand, the lack of evidence of a designer leads me to doubt one exists. On the other hand, the prospect of finding emperical evidence of a designer excites me beyond words. Someone suggested that looking for the designer put the cart before the horse. On the contrary, the search for the cart is the search for the horse. If the designer is no longer present (or if no designer ever existed), the origin of life can very likely never be proven. But if the designer is present, the only way to prove intelligent design is to find the designer. Sorry to ramble on so, and I eagerly look forward to your comments.

Where is the designer behind intelligent design?

2006-02-20T15:40:00.000-08:00

In response to my last post, some people I respect suggested that intelligent design accepts the scientific method and cannot be dismissed as unscientific. This caused me to look for more information on the subject which led me to the Intelligent Design Network. I spent a fair amount of time there but saw nothing that changed my opinion that intelligent design is inherently unscientific. True, the site is filled with the language of science, not unlike the ACLU's site being filled with the language of free speech. But the argument for intelligent design itself appears to boil down to the notion that life is so complicated that it could not have emerged unless there was an intelligence guiding its design. The parts of the site that I read (admittedly only a small portion of the entire contents of the site) involved no science beyond this simple observation. This is not, to my way of thinking, a scientific theory because it is not testable by the scientific method. One cannot propose a test for the cause of the complexity of life in the same way that one can test for the relationship between time and speed or the existence of black holes. There is, of course, no question that life is extraordinarily complicated and the chances of life arising by chance are exceedingly slim. But one could logically argue that the chances that an intelligence capable of creating life exists are even more remote. Intelligent design simply replaces one unlikely event with another, far more unlikely, event. How did such an intelligence come to exist? Where did it come from and, perhaps more importantly, where did it go? To my surprise, I did not find any effort by the ID supporters to detect the intelligence, itself. The closest was the comment that when we see the Stonehenge we assume it was intelligently designed even though we do not see the designers. But this is an odd analogy since we fully understand that the designers of Stonehenge are human and therefore long since dead. What do we understand about the intelligence behind intelligent design? It seems to me that if there was an intelligence guiding creation there are only four possibilities: (1) the intellignce has gone elsewhere, and is no longer here to be detected; (2) the intelligence has died, and is no longer here to be detected; (3) the intelligence is still present, but cannot be detected; or (4) the intelligence is still present and can be detected. If the intelligence is no longer here or cannot be detected there is no practical reason for caring whether life started by design or chance. That life was created by an intelligence is only important if the intelligence still exists and can be detected. So where is the intelligent designer now? If the supports of intelligent design were serious about an intelligent designer (and about science) shouldn't they be looking for proof of such a designer? All of this leaves me with many questions for Bookworm's readers. What is the science (as opposed to the mere observation of complexity) behind ID? Why is the existence of an intelligent designer more statistically likely than the existence of life arising by chance? Where did the intelligence come from? Where did it go? Can we devise a scientific test to detect the intelligence now? What would such a test look like? I look forward to your comments.

2006-02-19T23:28:00.000-08:00

Reader Sammy describes the ACLU as "an ennobling American institution" leading me to seek out the ACLU web site. It contains lovely platitudes about free speech (the topic of the day, I guess) and even a rationale for supporting the right to speech we disagree with. They give the game away, though, by seeking to ban speech in support of intelligent design. I must admit I'm not a fan of intelligent design myself. It works hard to put a scientific gloss on a decidedly unscientific theory. But the ACLU's demand that a school district "cease allowing staff to teach intelligent design in science classrooms throughout the district" is nothing short of suppression of speech. Apparently, the ACLU's right to free speech doesn't extend to speech in favor of religious theories. Ennobling, indeed.

Bill Clinton proves the point of the political correctness comment below

2006-02-19T22:55:00.000-08:00

Bill Clinton has come down squarely against free speech. Indeed, he would prosecute those who exercise it, thus demonstrating the point of the last entry in this blog. It's not surprising, I suppose, but it is a shame that a former leader of the "free world" would stand so firm against freedom. Hat tip to the American Thinker.

Political correctness in religious garb

2006-02-19T12:29:00.000-08:00

No one should be surprised that the American MSM has rolled over and played dead over the cartoon controversy. After all, censorship of religious images is nothing more or less than political correctness in religious garb. Political correctness is all about deciding who is privileged and who is not. The privileged are free to attack the unprivileged, but the unprivileged may not attack the privileged. Thus, women (privileged) may denigrate men (unprivileged) but men may not denigrate women. Blacks (privileged) may insult whites (see Bryant Gumbal's recent comments, which have gone practically uncriticized) but whites (unprivileged) may not insult blacks (see Rush Limbaugh, forced to resign from a football pregame show for comments that actually attacked the sports press but could be twisted into a criticism of black quarterbacks). Not surprisingly, Muslims may criticize Christians and Jews (call for their destruction, suicide bomb them, whatever) but Christians and Jews may not criticize Muslims. Just as it is quite all right to surpress any speech which might offend blacks and women, it is quite all right to surpress anything which might offend Muslims. It makes perfect sense in the PC world of American liberals controlling the MSM to use a picture of a dung covered Virgin Mary (which only offends Christians) to illustrate a Muslim cartoon controversy, rather than the cartoons themselves (which would offend Muslims). I used to think that the double standard inherent in political correctness was hypocritical, but I've realized that is incorrect. Liberal proponents of political correctness (who, of course, dominate the MSM) don't believe in equality in the first place, so they do not view identity politics, and inequality of treatment of people based on which groups they belong to, as anything unusual or improper. Political correctness is simply affirmative action applied to speech. Suppressing religious cartoons is simply political correctness applied to religion. Those of us who believe in equality must understand that we are dealing with an opposition that, at a fundamental level, disagrees with even the most basic principals upon which American was founded. The cartoon controversy is merely the latest illustration of this fact.

Wow, is this a hostile AP story about the VP

2006-02-18T17:03:00.000-08:00

If this were a legal brief, any good lawyer would be all over it, like a fly on honey. This AP story purporting to show discrepancies in the VP's hunting accident is one of the shoddiest bits of work I've ever seen. It begins with an extraordinarily biased opening, which hunts at dark, nefarious doings, and lies akin to "I did not have sex with that woman":

Vice President Dick Cheney said he didn't immediately disclose his hunting accident because he wanted the confusing details to come out right. Instead, authorized accounts came out slowly — and often still wrong. The result: a week of shifting blame, belatedly acknowledged beer consumption (not "zero" drinking after all) and evolving discrepancies in how the shooting happened, its aftermath and the way it was told to the nation. "There's a reason they call this crisis management," said corporate damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, "and that's because it's a mess."

That's harsh. Let's see where this article goes after this opening statement. First, it says that everyone lied about where blame belonged:

In the first days after the vice president wounded attorney Harry Whittington while shooting at quail last Saturday in Texas, blame was placed on the victim for not announcing his presence to fellow hunter Cheney.

You'd think after this opening sentence, that the article would go on to introdcue evidence that Whittington was hooting and hollering his whereabouts, and that eye witnesses saw Cheney deliberately aim at his friend and shoot. Well, not quite:

The about-face came Wednesday when Cheney made his first public comment on the accident. "It was not Harry's fault," he said. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

In other words, because the VP, in an old-fashioned way, took ultimate responsibility for what occurred -- since he was not injured and his friend was -- that's tantamount to an about-face on the unchanged story that Mr. Whittington failed to announce himself. As the Professor in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe keeps tutting, they are not teaching people logic nowadays. The reporters are also all a'twitter about their claim that the VP lied about not having consumed any alcohol during the hunt. In fact, he didn't. They admit that there was no alcohol during the hunt, corroborating Armstrong's contention that, as to alcohol, it was "No, zero, zippo." This statement is absolutely unrebutted by the VP's admission that, hours before, at lunch, not on the hunt, he had a single beer. I don't know what kind of rarified world the reporters live in, but in the real world, when a grown man has a single beer five to six hours before an event, he is not even marginally near being under the influence of alcohol. Regarding the victim's condition, the same reporters appear to think that the following two sentences are inconsistent:

Initial reports had him treated at the scene, then taken by ambulance to the hospital, where in no time he was cracking jokes with the nurses. It turned out that after being taken to the emergency room of a local, small hospital, he was flown by helicopter to the intensive care unit of the larger hospital in Corpus Christi.

I seem to remember Ronald Reagan, who was truly severely injured, cracking a joke too. Again, perhaps only those of us who know brave, old school gentleman, rather than whiney, effete reporters, can accept that someone can crack jokes and still be injured. The same illogical, warped view continues with regard to the license issue. The article makes it sound as if the VP was doing the hunting equivalent of driving without a license. As the reporters themselves are forced to admit, "Cheney was legally hunting with a license he bought in November." The problem was a minor one, in that he hadn't gotten a stamp from the local game department (and the reporters conveniently neglect to inform their audience that this is a $7.00 stamp, akin to the fee hikers pay to go on a nature trail). There's also the usual whine about "how dare they not tell us sooner," but the reporters, unsurprisingly, are unable to raise even the semblance of dirt with regard to this one. All they do is report that the VP's office worked slowly, and that Armstrong eventually took it upon herself to tell the hometown paper -- something that she told the Veep. In other words, despite the opening paragraph about discrepancies and falsehoods, the reporters don't introduce evidence of a single falsehood or even a shading of the truth. This is a smear article, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with anything but defaming the VP and casting unwarranted doubt in people's minds. If this were a trial, I'd be pointing out to the jury that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the facts asserted in the opening statement -- and I'd win. Talking to Technorati: Vice President, Cheney, Dick Cheney, Media, Mainstream media, Hunting accident, Whittington

Recognizing the UN for the really bad thing it is

2006-02-18T13:35:00.000-08:00

Here's Burt Prelutsky on precisely why Kerry and his kind are crazy to try to hand U.S. sovereignty over to the UN:

[W]hat nation in its right mind would surrender even a scintilla of its sovereignty to a group as loathsome as the member states of the U.N.? I would sooner trust the Mafia to call the shots. You think I’m indulging in hyperbole? At least I have no reason to think that, for all their faults, the Costa Nostra hates America. I mean, consider that among the regimes having votes are the likes of Cuba, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea to you), Laos, Cambodia, Rwanda, Myanmar, Sudan, Uganda, and two dozen Muslim-dominated dictatorships running the gamut from Bahrain to Yemen. And that’s not even counting France. Understand, the U.N., while going ballistic over America’s rescuing Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s iron grip, did nothing about genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan. The U.N., while taking every opportunity to chastise Israel, treated Yasir Arafat as if he were another Mother Teresa and his gang of suicide bombers were just so many good Samaritans going about their business. But even aside from all that, I counted 33 member nations with populations under 1,000,000. In fact, there are a baker’s dozen with populations under 100,000! We don’t call places that size countries, we call them counties or neighborhoods. The total population of those 33 countries, ranging alphabetically from Andorra (67,509) to San Marino (24,521), is slightly in excess of 10 million, the same as Seoul, Korea, for crying- out-loud! If you can believe it, there are only 16,952 people in Palau. Palau has a seat in the United Nations, and, what’s more, their ambassador can park anywhere he damn well pleases! You really want Palau having a say in matters of American foreign policy? On top of all that, the U.S. not only pays most of the freight for the U.N., but we don’t even charge them rent. Can you imagine what someone like Trump would pay for that piece of real estate? So, give me one good reason why these good-for-nothing freeloaders shouldn’t be sent packing. Let them set up camp in the Hague or Geneva or Fallujah, for that matter.

I guess when you're an anti-American francophile, little details like this just don't bother you.

Fearing fear, and fearing evil

2006-02-17T21:13:00.000-08:00

Sophie Scholl : The Final Days, which is a true story about student dissenters in Nazi Germany (all of whom were executed), sounds like a good movie. Indeed, Stephen Holden of the New York Times certainly thinks it is:

"Sophie Scholl: The Final Days" conveys what it must have been like to be a young, smart, idealistic dissenter in Nazi Germany, where no dissent was tolerated. This gripping true story, directed in a cool, semi-documentary style by the German filmmaker Marc Rothemund from a screenplay by Fred Breinersdorfer, challenges you to gauge your own courage and strength of character should you find yourself in similar circumstances. Would you risk your life the way Sophie Scholl (Julia Jentsch) and a tiny group of fellow students at Munich University did to spread antigovernment leaflets? How would you behave during the kind of relentless interrogations that Sophie endures? If sentenced to death for your activities, would you still consider your resistance to have been worth it?

Now, at this moment, I'm thinking about the threats made and murders committed by vocal Islamofacists all over the world, aimed at stifling publication of a handful of cartoons that take on the fact that radical Muslims commit incredible violence in Mohammad's name, and the fact that Muslims who are silent are complicit. To me, that's a no brainer comparison. I'm also assuming at this point in the review that Holden is blushing that he works for a media outlet that, at the first sign of a threat, started appeasing so hard you could see the flop sweat pouring of the Times' windows. (Of course, that appeasement didn't stop the Times from publishing a dung- and pornography-covered picture of the Virgin Mary to show that, one it comes to religion, it's willing to hit hard. But I digress.) Strangely, though, that's not at all what Holden thought of. Rather than focusing on the Times' real cowardice, in the face real threats, he found an entirely different analogy:

In a climate of national debate in the United States about the overriding of certain civil liberties to fight terrorism, the movie looks back on a worst possible scenario in which such liberties were taken away. It raises an unspoken question: could it happen here?

Yes, folks, Holden is worrying about a completely hypothetical fear (and one that falls a lot closer to Bush Derangement Syndrome than to reality). He ignores entirely the fact that it has happened here, and the fact that the NY Times and all of its employees failed that test. Well, even though Holden isn't embarrassed, I'm embarrassed for him. Talking to Technorati: Cartoonistan, Kartoonistan, New York Times, Media, Mainstream media, Nazis, White Rose, Dissent, Cartoon riots

Yet another entry in the "for this parents pay $40,000 a year" category

2006-02-17T14:49:00.000-08:00

This time it's Yale engaging in shenanigans that should have parents wondering about whether an Ivy League education is worth their hard-earned money:

In a lecture hall on Yale's storied Old Campus, not long after an afternoon astronomy class has cleared out, a middle-aged sex toy saleswoman demonstrates her technique and hands out free products to an eager crowd. *** Welcome to Sex Week at Yale, a biennial celebration that has become one of the most provocative campus events in the country. Organizers say Sex Week gets students talking about sex in a way that's more relevant than middle-school film strips, more honest than movies and television, and more fun than requisite college health lectures. *** Yale's event, which ends Saturday, includes lectures from dating specialists, a sex therapist and a discussion of homosexuality with a former Roman Catholic priest. More provocative sessions include a panel of porn stars and stripping lessons from a Playboy Channel hostess. Critics say Sex Week is just the latest act of debauchery at colleges in recent years: Students started sex columns. Vassar and others created erotica journals. Harvard launched H-Bomb, a magazine featuring suggestive pictures of undergraduates. Washington University in St. Louis offered a sex-themed week with orgasm seminars and condom telegrams. "I don't see how bringing a Playboy stripper to campus is helping anything," said Travis Kavulla, editor of the Harvard Salient, which joined other conservative newspapers in giving Sex Week the Collegiant Network 2004 Outrage Award. "How are universities trying to educate students in sponsoring activities like this?" Sex Week is a recognized student organization but Brisben's company, PureRomance.com, sponsors the events, not Yale. Advertising helps pay for marketing and for Sex Week at Yale, the Magazine.

Frankly, it seems to me that, in America's sex saturated culture, it's overkill for Yale, one of the most expensive campuses in America, to be using parent moneys (as well, I'm sure, as Federal dollars, since money is essentially fungible) to teach Ivy League girls how to undress like strippers. I always end one of these posts with the same plea: Please, please, please, let all these excesses have vanished by the time my kids are college age. Talking to Technorati: Colleges, Universities, High education, Sexuality, Pornography

Uh oh!

2006-02-17T14:32:00.000-08:00

Here's something more for a very cautious person to worry about:

Specific personality traits might boost the risk for Parkinson's disease, British researchers report. A more cautious, risk-averse approach to life may be linked to increased odds for the motor neuron disease, says a team reporting in the February issue of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 'This study raises the possibility that there is a neurobiological link between low sensation-seeking traits which might underlie the parkinsonism personality,' the researchers wrote. And because more reserved types are less likely to smoke, the finding could throw water on the notion that smoking somehow protects against Parkinson's disease, the researchers added.

And there I always thought my risk averse behavior was increasing my chances of a long, healthy life. Bummer.

Lighter blogging

2006-02-17T08:35:00.000-08:00

I'm heading into a week long vacation, so blogging over the next couple of days will be light, very light. However, once I'm gone, Don Quixote will be blogging in my stead. He's not as prolific as I am, but he exemplifies the principle that quality trumps quantity every time. You'll be missing some good stuff if you don't stop in to find out what he's done.

Winners of the Great Conservative Slogan Contest

2006-02-16T19:22:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all who voted in the first Great Conservative Slogan Contest. The voting is closed and I've gathered the results. And without further ado, here are the winning slogans: Best NSA slogan [by Laer]:

Bush spied, terrorists died.

Best slogan about Democrats [by Kevin]:

Democrats -- a 40 year war on poverty and still no exit strategy

Best slogan about education [by Dennis Travis]:

Help stamp out literacy -- support the teachers' union.

Best slogan about life and death issues [by Patrick O'Hannigan]:

Aren't you glad your mother was pro-life?

Best anti-terrorism slogan [by Laer]:

Give peace a chance. Kill a terrorist.

Best "I support Bush" slogan [by Lissa]:

I stubbed my toe. Impeach Bush!

Best "I support the war and our troops" slogan [by Anonymous]:

Peace through victory.

Best "money and responsibility" slogan [by Quadko]:

Keep your socialism out of my paycheck!

Best "this is liberalism" slogan [by Unknown, so it's probably not original to my readers, but it really is a good one]:

Liberals: so open-minded, their brains fell out.

Best original "this is liberalism" slogan [by Quadko]:

It takes a conservative to feed a liberal.

Best "free speech/ACLU" slogan [by Sammy]:

ACLU: Aiding and Abetting America's Enemies.

Best MSM slogan [by The Good Lt]:

Reporters aren't liberal -- and the 9/11 hijackers weren't Muslims.

Best "the USA is a great place" slogan [by our own Don Quixote]:

I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced. I am an American.

Best "election 2008" slogan [by Bilgeman]:

Vote for a REAL strong woman . . . Condoleeza!

Best religion slogan [by Quadko]:

Free to be religious.

Best of the rest [by Lissa]:

Casey Sheehan deserves a better spokesperson.

I will be scanning every bumpersticker I see from now on in the hopes of finding these clever, interesting and insightful slogans cropping up on America's cars. Thanks again to all of you who participated, both by submitting all those wonderful ideas, and by voting. [If you want to see all of the slogans in the contest, check here. You're also still welcome to vote, although I will no longer be counting votes.]

It's all about me, me, me...dia

2006-02-16T07:09:00.000-08:00

The first snit was about the fact that a local Texas paper got the scoop. The second snit is about the fact that Cheney went to Fox and not to another news outlet that would have elicited the same story, but with incredible aggression and disrespect:

On CNN, commentator Jack Cafferty called the interview "a little bit like Bonnie interviewing Clyde. ... I mean, running over there to the Fox network -- talk about seeking a safe haven."

I mean, running your mouth off when you don't get to savage the VP -- talk about showing your biases. Talking to Technorati: Cheney, Media, Mainstream media, CNN

Winning every battle, but losing the War

2006-02-15T16:12:00.000-08:00

Okay, this seems to be my day to point the finger over and over at the media: for its cowardly handling of the Kartoonistan situation, for its silly posturing with regard to Cheney-gate, and always, always for its inability to find the true moral ground with regard to Israel. It turns out that, in this last regard, it's more than just bias. According to a Claremont Institute review of Stephanie Gutmann's The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy, Israel has some huge handicaps, including a cowardly, misdirected media:

In the media war, Israel has three disadvantages. The first is an open society, which allows reporters (and filmmakers and activists and human-rights observers) the freedom to roam, record, and interview in first-world comfort. This has saddled Israel with what may be the world's highest per capita concentration of reporters. Jerusalem is host to 350 permanent foreign news bureaus, as many as New York, London, or Moscow; the volume of reportage on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank is 75 times greater than on any other area of comparable population. This obsessive attention necessarily distorts, by casting the Israel-Palestinian war in a theatric, world-historical light. In the last decade, around 4,500 Israeli and Palestinian lives have been lost to the fighting. The Russo-Chechen war has killed 50,000 (11 times as many), the Darfur crisis has killed 180,000 (40 times as many), and the Congolese civil war has killed 3.5 million (778 times as many). But very few Americans can call to mind images of the ghastly violence in Chechnya, Sudan, or Congo—or even identify the warring parties—because these are places so dangerous that the New York Times simply cannot responsibly send a reporter there, much less a bureau. *** If freedom is disadvantageous, this goes double when you happen to abut a shameless, propagandizing Arab dictatorship. According to Gutmann, the Palestinian Authority under Arafat used "the combat theatre (the West Bank, Gaza, and inside Israel) as a kind of soundstage." Those famous scenes of Palestinian boys with rocks confronting soldiers, for example, are usually choreographed. Palestinian youths, exhorted by parents, teachers, and their televisions to pelt Israeli soldiers, are so conscious of the media presence themselves that they often don't start in with the stones until photographers arrive. Israeli soldiers are actually forewarned of clashes when film crews suddenly materialize. (Coalition forces have experienced the same phenomenon in Iraq.) How do these reporters or photographers, on a quest for dramatic stories and footage, know where the "spontaneous" violence is to "erupt"? One or another foot soldier in their "small army of Palestinian fixers" is tipped off by the attackers. The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Press (which together supply 80% of news images to the world media) require the assistance of natives who speak the local language, know who's who, and can get things done. These hired locals, in turn, make decisions about where to drive and what to translate (or leave un-translated). *** Israel's third disadvantage is media convention itself. Gutmann reminds us that all news is constructed: "Behind every picture there is a long story and a regiment of people who brought that particular picture, of all possible pictures, to you." And construction is rarely better than its architects: "producers sitting in carpeted, climate-controlled studios in New York and London are making war their subject…. [A]nd journalists, dumped on the ground with little prior knowledge, are forced to condense and 'package' terribly complex and crucial events." The general leftism in the news media gives reporters and producers many ways of introducing their bias into the simplified narrative: "David and Goliath, Poor versus Rich, the Third World versus Western Colonialism, Man versus Machine, even you-in-third-grade versus those-guys-who-always-beat-you-up after school." With Israel and the Palestinians, the overall result is "Large Mechanized Brutes versus Small Vulnerable Brown People."

No matter how you slice it, whether because of danger, misdirection, or political bias, the undeniable truth is that a septic spot in the world has remained septic because those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of conveying information about that spot have failed in their job. A very big tip of the hat to Gail, at Crossing the Rubicon. Talking to Technorati: Media, Mainstream media, Media bias, Middle East, Israel, Palestinians [Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.]

Chenygate and Kartoonistan

2006-02-15T11:23:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to give you a heads up that Michelle Malkin has, I think, one of the better articles juxtaposing the media's frenzy about Dick Cheney's hunting accident, and its extraordinary "restraint" regarding Kartoonistan. Tony Blankley's take on the matter isn't so bad either. Indeed, while is sarcasm in the first part of the article is a bit strained, I think he has a great summary:

But the Washington press corp, and particularly the White House press corp, has developed, as an institution, a grossly dilated view of itself. Most of us can tolerate arrogance if it is accompanied by extraordinary capacity and virtuosity. The brilliant scientist, the war-winning general, the great artists are entitled to their pride. But the hallmark of the Washington Press corp these days is mediocrity, groupthink, a lack of curiosity and rampant careerism. These attributes were all on show in the shooting party incident. But this is just a trivial incident — except for the poor, shot gentleman who suffered a heart attack, may he recover fully and quickly. We live at a moment of revolutionary change in the international order. The rise and violence of radical, possibly caliphate-forming Islam and the huge, culture-changing, unexamined consequences of rampant globalization make the present one of the least predictable moments to be alive. Both government officials and citizens are in desperate need of a national press corp that is alive to the change and digging to find factual hints of the near future. We need the kind of future-oriented intellectual vigor, curiosity and genuine iconoclasm that typified American reporters in the first half of the last century. Instead, as the shooting party incident exemplified, we have in the White House at the most elite level of American journalism, self-absorbed, self-important men and women who stand on their prerogatives even over marginal and inconsequential matters.

In other words, the Press is making way too much of Cheney's problem, and way too little of real problems in the world. By saying this, I don't mean to excuse Cheney's conduct. He clearly violated a hunting rule (I teach my kids to look before pointing anything, and they're not even handling guns), and he was an idiot not to take it to the Press first. For a VP who is consistently accused of keeping secrets in a manner that is sneaky and possibly illegal, his silence here, while kind of explainable on its face, could only add fuel to the fire. But I'm trying to keep wheat and chaff separate, and Kartoonistan, Iran, Hugo Chavez, etc., are all wheaty stories, while Cheney-gate is chaff. Talking to Technorati: Cheney, Media [Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.]

We are winning

2006-02-15T10:54:00.000-08:00

At American Thinker, Jeff Hale has written about the fact that we are winning, no matter the Press obsessions. A liberal I know is especially taken with war reporting at the micro level -- that is, each soldier fatality means we've lost the war -- and I can't seem to convince him that war is a big picture, replete with personal tragedies. The tragedies are personally important, but they are not the story nor the outcome. Jeff Hale says it better:

The most troubling aspect to me is how the American public – in fact, our culture as a whole in this day and age – view battlefield casualties. The United States of America – its citizenry, mind you, definitely not its warriors – cannot effectively fight another major war if the deaths of brave warriors are turned into an argument against pressing on to victory. Iraq has been a three year operation resulting in 2000 battlefield fatalities, liberating 26 million people from the clutches of a tyrant. If 2000 deaths can send the public into hysteria, how will we fare if we face a determined enemy willing to sacrifice on the scale we saw in World War II, when battlefield casualties ran into the millions?

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.]

Sometimes you have to know when to shut up

2006-02-15T10:45:00.000-08:00

I wouldn't have believed it, but she did it! Here's Hillary:

Asked at a press conference for her reaction about how the White House has handled the incident, US Senator Hillary Clinton called the Bush administration's failure to be more forthcoming "troubling." "A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said. "Putting it all together, going back years now, there's a pattern and it's a pattern that should be troubling," she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."

Just to clarify things, is this the same Hillary who conspired to withhold information about Vince Foster's suicide for 30 hours? The same Hillary who secretly collected files on people? The same Hillary embroiled in Travelgate? The Hillary who held dozens of secret hearings as a prelude to her much vaunted health plan? That Hillary? You gotta love it. Dick Morris is correct that Hillary is always at her best when she keeps her mouth shut. Interestingly, AFP, which published the story from which I quoted, is silent about Hillary's own history of -- how shall I put it? -- reticence. Talking to Technorati: Hillary Clinton [Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.]

Making a spectacle of itself

2006-02-15T08:14:00.000-08:00

The MSM's outrage about Cheney's hunting accident highlights something that has become increasingly obvious in the past few years: more and more often, the news that most excites the Press involves the Press. That is, the Press is no longer merely the conduit for bringing information to the public, it is an actor. There's no doubt that this can be traced to Watergate, of course, but it's now gone from the magnificent (in its own way) to the petty. I'm on my way out to a meeting, so won't take time to hyperlink here, but just think of the palpitating Press coverage about Rathergate (or, if you prefer, Memogate), the Valerie Plame affair (which had the NY Times arguing both sides of the law), the NY Times' Jayson Blair scandal, the New Republic's Stephen Glass scandal, the excitement about that poor reporter who was hit by a bomb (as if that defined the status of the war itself), and now the Press' unmitigated rage at the VP's decision to let a local paper get the scoop about the hunting incident (and I concede the incident was news; I just think the press has turned itself into the real news of the story). Talking to Technorati: Media [Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.]

Newsitorials and their audience

2006-02-14T18:09:00.000-08:00

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.] This showed up on the internet version of the front page of today's San Francisco Chronicle:

The accidental shooting of a fellow hunter by Vice President Dick Cheney, along with the White House's mishandling of the news this past weekend, underscore the secrecy under which the VP operates.

To me, this squiblet reads like an editorial, since both the bit about "mishandling of the news" and "secrecy" seem to be more the opinions of an insulted press corp than actual fact. Nevertheless, there it is, front and center on the news page. It's no surprise to read this kind of partisan "news" in the SF Chron, which has always been known for its liberal viewpoint. However, I'm wondering if it's audience is quite as extreme as its editorial board. The other day, its "Two Cents Column" (which asks topical questions of a regular group of Bay Area readers) asked who is worse -- Bin Laden or Bush? Interestingly, most of the question's responders had the sense to give the morally correct answer. For example, Karen Gerbosi, of ultra-liberal Marin, answered

Undoubtedly bin Laden is more dangerous. It is sad and disappointing that some people are willing to forget the carnage of Sept. 11 that bin Laden sponsored for the sake of their obsession with bashing President Bush.

At least two people were disgusted by the question. Thus, Robert Hallstrom, of slightly more conservative Pittsburg, said:

My jaw dropped in disbelief at this question. Everyone has their own reality. We see things differently. Some wear aluminum foil hats so others cannot listen in to their thoughts. Some converse with spirits. You guys have been reading your own newspaper for too long.

Likewise, Iren Jenny, of conservative Orinda, said:

You have got to be kidding! Has the Chronicle staff lost their mind, or is liberalism choking your brains? How can an American newspaper ask such a stupid question? Have you forgotten Sept. 11?

Even Barry Hirsch, who doesn't like Bush, took umbrage at the fact that someone would ask the question:

Easy there. I'm no Bush fan, and am an ACLU member -- maybe not prudent with our present government -- but the Bush presidency will pass without enduring damage to our republic. Bin Laden and Muslim extremism is a real danger to the United States and the world. Muslim extremists victimize innocent people like Jill Carroll, making this world very dangerous. Hopefully, in three years we have a better president who can find more effective ways to deal with this threat.

Sam Guiterrez, who lives in a more conservative pocket of the Bay Area (San Leandro) gave an appropriately hawkish answer, considering that we're at war:

I hope Bush is now feared as more dangerous than bin Laden, who declared full-scale jihad against us in 1998, three years before Bush even took office. If Bill Clinton had been as "dangerous" as Bush, perhaps we wouldn't have lost 3,000 innocent lives to Islamic extremists on Sept. 11.

But this is the Bay Area, so you also got Nida Khalil, who resides in affluent San Mateo, stating:

Well, who has killed more people? You have it: George W. Bush.

Score one for moral relativism. Likewise, Nancy Davis, of Albany (right next door to Bezerkley) knows real evil when she sees it:

I think George W. Bush is the most dangerous man on earth. He is powerful. He has no integrity. He has no respect for the citizens' right to privacy. He values only the lives of those with whom he agrees. He has the atomic bomb.

So does Carl Allen, out there in Ukiah:

It's a toss-up, tough to pick. Both are trying to destroy the America I know and love.

Anne Spanier, in Oakland (another Bezerkeley neighbor) also has no doubts about how evil George Bush is:

They are both dangerous for different reasons. Osama because he uses tribal religious fervor to stir up hatred and violence toward Americans, who are pretty clueless about his positions. Bush is dangerous because as the leader of the world's strongest military power, he uses it to dominate America's strategic oil interests. They are both short-sighted ways to run the world.

Although the majority of respondents -- even those who disagree with Bush -- are able to give common-sensical answers, the Chron relentlessly panders to those who hail from the furthest Left corner of the political sphere. It is true that the press is still effective in getting its message across (I think its relentlessly negative reporting about the War is showing in the poll numbers), but it seems to me that those bubble news rooms are more and more floating away from real people. I mean, it says something when the major paper in the most liberal pocket of America finds legitimate a question that its readers find preposterous even to contemplate. Hat tip re the Two Cents: Opinion Journal's Best of the Web Today Talking to Technorati: Bush, George Bush, Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden, San Francisco Chronicle, Media, Mainstream media

A new use for Darth Vader's helmet

2006-02-14T17:24:00.000-08:00

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.] I don't know why, but I found this story incredibly funny:

A shiny black toilet is the centerpiece of a San Anselmo couple's guest bathroom that features lava rock walls, gaudy orange floor tiles and a nude woman emblazoned on a frosted glass shower door. The interior decor of Bruce and Suzanne Stein's home is more reminiscent of the popular 1960s television cartoon featuring Fred and Wilma Flintstone than a photo layout one sees in Architectural Digest or Modern Homes. But it's a good thing the Steins resisted the temptation to remodel when they purchased the two-bedroom, two-bath home in 1997. Instead, they focused on a new roof and flooring and figured the time would come for a new downstairs bathroom. The time has come. The Steins won American Standard's 2005 "Ugliest Bathroom" contest and will be awarded $25,000 toward a remodeling job. "We always considered it a cave," said Bruce Stein, 47, a procurement manager for an East Bay firm. "It was a project that we were going to get to. A friend of ours described it best when he said, 'it was like going to the bathroom in Darth Vader's helmet.' Some of our guests have been too scared to use it."

It's just such a nice $25,000 piece of luck for an ordinary Joe and Jane who were willing to put up with really ugly.

Using your rights to defend your rights

2006-02-14T09:51:00.000-08:00

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.] Believe it or not, there was once a time when the New York press, threatened with mob violence, responded, not with silence and appeasement, but with an armed defense. That is, the Press used its Second Amendment rights to protect its First Amendment rights. The same article I've linked to also references the appalling cowardice of today's MSM, and makes sure to mention the only two examples of American Press courage in the face of today's mob outrage. Talking to Technorati: Riots, Cartoon riots, Mobs, Media, Mainstream media, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Freedom of speech

More in my "for this parents spend $40,000 a year" series

2006-02-14T08:42:00.001-08:00

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.] Mike Adams, who keeps a gimlet eye on American campuses, joins with Jon Sanders to point out some of the insane excesses at American colleges and universities. Be warned that, because this column is about your average campus feminists' obsession with female sexuality, it has some graphic language. The article makes me realize how foolish I was growing up thinking that feminism was all about earning the same money for the same work, and having reasonably equal access to societal benefits. (I say "reasonably" because I really don't want to to share a restroom with you guys. Sorry.) I was so wrong. It's all about sex, sex, sex. The funny thing, though, is that I suspect that sexual obsession is infinitely more beneficial to your average college male, who gets it cheap and easy, than to your college female, who just gets to feel cheap and easy. UPDATE: Carrie Lukas, at the Independent Women's Forum, writes a timely article about the feminist's hijacking of Valentine's Day (warning, despite her civility, the source material makes the article somewhat graphic), and addresses my point about the fact that this little bit of "feminism" is, in fact, harmful to women. Talking to Technorati: Colleges, Universities, Feminism, Sexuality

Dennis Prager exposes the media's cowardice and hypocrisy

2006-02-14T08:42:00.000-08:00

[Please scroll down, or click here, to vote in the Conservative Slogan Contest. Your votes matter.] Dennis Prager decimates the media's excuses for not publishing the cartoons. Here's is list of why every one of their excuses about not giving offense is false:

First, major papers in virtually every European country have published the cartoons. It is inconceivable that European papers are less concerned with Muslim sensibilities than American media are. If anything, in Europe they are more pro-Muslim given their anti-Israel and anti-American views and given that they live in countries with far greater numbers of Muslims than live in America. Second, the reason to publish the cartoons is not to offend Muslims; it is to explain the most significant current news event in the world. How can anyone understand the Islamic riots without having seen the cartoons that triggered them? If millions of Christians rioted after cartoons were published in the Muslim world, does anyone doubt that the Western press would publish them, or that it had the obligation to do so? The argument that people can see the cartoons on the Internet is specious. Anyone could see the photos of the abuse of Arab prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison on the Internet, yet the news media presented these photos day after day for weeks. Third, the American press has routinely published cartoons and pictures that insult Christians and Jews. The Los Angeles Times published a cartoon depicting the stones of the Western Wall of the Jewish Temple, the holiest site to Jews, as spelling out the word 'HATE' and showing a religious Jew bowing down before it. And what newspaper did not publish a photo of 'Piss Christ,' the Andres Serrano work of 'art' depicting a crucifix in the artist's urine? American newspapers 'insult' every group whenever they feel like it, but no one riots, burns and kills because of it. Fourth, the ban on depicting Mohammed applies to Muslims, not to non-Muslims. It is remarkable that American newspapers, so frightened of any breakdown between church and state, are suddenly guided by Muslim religious prohibitions. Fifth, the argument that publishing the images would inflame Muslims' passions is another coverup for cowardice. No American newspaper or TV news show exhibited the slightest concern with inflaming Muslim passions when they endlessly published and depicted Abu Ghraib abuse photos. If the liberal news media in America -- conservative Fox News and The Weekly Standard have shown the cartoons -- admitted they feared being hurt if they showed the cartoons, one would have respect for their honesty, if not their courage. But the liberal news media's lack of courage coupled with their dishonest justifications make for a devastating commentary on American news media.